>I haven't seen any compelling evidence or discussion about whether or not
the data in question was illegally copied into OSM. All we have to go on is
the first paragraph of Frederik's initial post. I'm not questioning
Frederik's (or any DWG members') passion or dedication to the project, but
we ar
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 8/27/2017 10:29 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>>
>> I strongly disagree. As a group of people who have received
>> extra-judicial powers in the OSM community, they should be expected to
>> follow community guidelines to a higher degree than the res
On 8/27/2017 10:29 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
I strongly disagree. As a group of people who have received
extra-judicial powers in the OSM community, they should be expected to
follow community guidelines to a higher degree than the rest of the
community.
As the publisher of the OSM database, the
John,
Once the way names are redacted, I will revise for Québec following the naming
rules different from the english part of Canada. ToDo / JOSM should help for
this.
regard
Pierre
john whelan wrote :
I suspect Jamie could wave a magic wand for Quebec.
_
The odbl=clean could be a way to exclude road names from the removal,
though sources from the info should be given, whether Canvec, Mapillary,
OpenStreetCam or local survey
On Aug 27, 2017 3:29 PM, "john whelan" wrote:
> There are a couple of issues here. The first are our users, we don't
> nor
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> I don't understand what people mean with 'verifying' objects. We're
> not trying to find factually-incorrect data. The data is legally
> tainted. It's questionable whether looking at the current names
> imported from GMaps, comparing to a
There are a couple of issues here. The first are our users, we don't
normally think about them but deleting the names at the wrong point in
OSMAND's cycle could mean missing street names for a period of time.
Second is the problem of some data might be incorrect as a result of the
source delibera
There was a script during the licence change that assessed whether or not
changes to names were copyrightable.
--
Andrew
From: Mikel Maron
Sent: 27 August 2017 19:51:05
To: Greg Morgan; Martijn van Exel
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap; Steve Friedl; Tod Fitch; talk...@ope
Presumably it means something like the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean tag. It may not be as much
use hete though.
--
Andrew
From: Nicolás Alvarez
Sent: 27 August 2017 20:01:16
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap; talk...@openstreetmap.o
I don't understand what people mean with 'verifying' objects. We're
not trying to find factually-incorrect data. The data is legally
tainted. It's questionable whether looking at the current names
imported from GMaps, comparing to another source, seeing they match
and marking them as "verified" wil
Le 27 août 2017 20:37:18 GMT+02:00, Greg Morgan a
écrit :
>On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2017 11:58, "Yves" wrote:
>>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Frederik,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an
>> import or automated
> we can find a good workflow for that. I wasn't expecting the community to
>start working on this pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues
>later...
Absolutely, let's do this!
Also, Frederik, I think your script picked up false positives. Spot checked in
DC, and these are expans
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Happy to help. All we'd need for MapRoulette is a list of locations and a
> proper description of the work we'd expect people to do. Anyone can create
> the challenge but I'd be happy to do it.
>
> Martijn
>
Martijn,
I'd would be great
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2017 11:58, "Yves" wrote:
>
> a écrit :
>
>
> Frederik,
>
>
> Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an
> import or automated edit and follow the rules you would expect to see the
> rest of the communi
Frederik just answered Steve, but no message was received from Steve on the
talk list. Bad documentation of the thread and difficulty to follow discussions
coming from two lists, talk and talk-us. I then suggest that this thread be
only on talk.
>From the list that Frederik provided earlier (ie
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Here's a list of way IDs affected, with country and state:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/chdr.details
>
>
Frederik,
I looked a small sample of the list. For example, way 10012342 [1] in Texas
was only touched by chdr. The name ori
Steve:
thank you for your work. I'll save your list. It appears that others
might be eager to do the same, maybe we can find a good workflow for
that. I wasn't expecting the community to start working on this
pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues later, it is of
course an option
On Aug 27, 2017 11:58, "Yves" wrote:
a écrit :
Frederik,
Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an import
or automated edit and follow the rules you would expect to see the rest of
the community follow
Ian,
To lessen the burden of the DWG, I would say that this t
>
> If we are going to have the consistency you want, the way would be to
> downgrade the trunk sections to primary, because after all it's US 2,
> not "Trunk 2". In the UK, it would be the A2, and unquestionably
> primary.
yes, that's what I want.
Perhaps you should make your own render, and
Hi Ian,
On 08/27/2017 06:23 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an
> import or automated edit and follow the rules you would expect to see
> the rest of the community follow.
Sorry for not being clear about this. I posted this with my DWG hat on
a écrit :
Frederik,
Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an import or
automated edit and follow the rules you would expect to see the rest of the
community follow
Ian,
To lessen the burden of the DWG, I would say that this thread is sufficient to
document the
Indeed, with the geometry still remaining it will be easy to create a
maproulette task(s) to repair the damage
+1 for name tag redaction
On Aug 27, 2017 12:26 PM, "Ian Dees" wrote:
> Frederik,
>
> Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an
> import or automated edit an
On balance I'd go rip it out then go back in and clean it up.
Cheerio John
On 27 August 2017 at 12:04, James wrote:
> As Mr.Ramm said, there can be trap streets, which should be removed.
>
> When I inspected the data, it seems most of it is in Québec and wouldnt be
> hard to validate streetname
Frederik,
Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an import
or automated edit and follow the rules you would expect to see the rest of
the community follow. Please post samples of your changes, make a wiki page
for posterity, and thanks for working to get buy-in from loca
Then it wouldn't be hard either to add the names again from a legal source
after the redaction.
> El 27 ago 2017, a las 13:04, James escribió:
>
> As Mr.Ramm said, there can be trap streets, which should be removed.
>
> When I inspected the data, it seems most of it is in Québec and wouldnt be
As Mr.Ramm said, there can be trap streets, which should be removed.
When I inspected the data, it seems most of it is in Québec and wouldnt be
hard to validate streetnames for 1400 something items.
On Aug 27, 2017 11:24 AM, "Paul Norman" wrote:
> On 8/27/2017 7:26 AM, john whelan wrote:
>
>> I
Either directly or indirectly, and it is a suggestion only.
Cheerio John
On 27 August 2017 at 11:21, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 8/27/2017 7:26 AM, john whelan wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that any street names added by chdr in Canada were more
>> than likely derived from CANVEC sources
>>
>
> What
What do you think is google source for names in Canada ;)
Pierre
De : Paul Norman
À : talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche 27 août 2017 11h24
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
On 8/27/2017 7:26 AM, john whelan wrote:
> I would
On 8/27/2017 7:26 AM, john whelan wrote:
I would suggest that any street names added by chdr in Canada were
more than likely derived from CANVEC sources
What makes you believe this to be so?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.
As James said earlier, canvec/geobase opendata provides the street names. This
can be easily corrected. But we need to establish a procedure and identify
which ways chdr originally added the name.
We can look simply at the history with a link to the OSM APIexample adding the
id after way/ :
htt
In Canada as James has said CANVEC which has been accepted as Open Source
acceptable to OSM has most street names in Canada. There are a few
exceptions locally where the city has renamed streets and these changes
have not yet been reflected in CANVEC.
I would suggest that any street names added b
If we validate via survey say in Canada, will we be able to remove the id
from the revert list? Canada has Canvec we can reference to as well as
OpenStreetCam and Mapillary
On Aug 27, 2017 9:50 AM, "Frederik Ramm" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>in 2010 I was privately contacted by another OSM user with the
Hi,
in 2010 I was privately contacted by another OSM user with the
suspicion that user "chdr" might be copying names from Google maps
(there were few "easter eggs" in Oman that were only on Google and not
in the real world, and they suddenly popped up on OSM). "chdr" was
contacted at the time,
33 matches
Mail list logo
