Generally there should be less incompatible data every day, however
there still some imports of non-copyrightable (PD, government
licensed) that were uploaded by users who did not agree to CT. Because
of this the incompatibility test would have to be re-run periodically.
(and maybe if some problems
On 30/01/12 23:41, LM_1 wrote:
...
That said there are other ways to ensure the goal of this suggestion -
seamless transition rather than deletions and angry/leaving
contributors.
One that comes to my mind and does not require any drastic changes
would utilise filtering feature of JOSM (and requ
Ian wrote
"Reasons to change the licence fast? Because editors are still changing
nonCT objects - information is still being added to the map every day that
is going to be deleted. Bad enough we are losing the nonCT data, worse
that we should risk losing new CT data. Also, there are editors han
LM_1 wrote on 31/01/2012 10:41:00 AM:
> If API is not changed to serve the cleaned version of data, it would
> be good to have at least some editor-side tool to revert selected
> object to the clean state and then repair/edit it as it should be.
Every time I see this mentioned, I feel compelled
Since I am mentioned in the first post, I should probably react too:
It was not a deeply thought through proposal, just a general idea. And
I still believe a good one.
I can imagine that changing the API itself is a lot of work. Much
worse, it serves as a public interface that unknown number of cli
On 1/28/2012 8:30 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong or impossible about that.
But it does introduce more work for us (because we would have to
implement a way for the API to reject changes to tainted objects).
A notice could originate in the 2 most popular editor
Hi,
On 28.01.2012 14:02, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" wrote:
In a recent discussion on talk-cz Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) have suggested it
would be good to have an extra phase (couple of months) in which only
untainted edits would be accepted. This would prevent users to put their
time into something th
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Or, in other words, do you have reason to believe that a three-month
> "only edits to non-tainted objects accepted" phase would actually make
> people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And
> if so, why?
Can we agree on the fact, that some of the rec
Petr,
In a recent discussion on talk-cz Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) have suggested it
would be good to have an extra phase (couple of months) in which only
untainted edits would be accepted. This would prevent users to put their
time into something that will be gone after final cut-off and it would
pro
Hello,
currently we're at "phase 4" of Implementation Plan for ODbL and closing
on the final data cut-off.
Database currently contains the mix of ODbL+CT (in)compliant data and it
is possible to edit them all. And that's unfortunate, because when the
final cut-off is done, we lose not only data f
10 matches
Mail list logo
