Maarten Deen wrote:
> That is something different than what 80n said earlier
80n, not for the first time, is wrong.
> So, which is it? Cleared and no details about any previous
> modifications or archived and earlier details available?
> You have to excuse the confusion, because these are confli
On 14-12-2011 20:32, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Maarten Deen wrote:
Well, since all history of that data before API v0.5 is lost
Hey hey hey. Slow down.
Data before API 0.5 is _not_ lost. It is archived.
That is something different than what 80n said earlier, quoting a
message from Frederik
On 14 December 2011 20:14, Maarten Deen wrote:
> On 14-12-2011 19:32, Richard Weait wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted
>>> since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they
Maarten Deen wrote:
> Well, since all history of that data before API v0.5 is lost
Hey hey hey. Slow down.
Data before API 0.5 is _not_ lost. It is archived.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Who-mapped-it-first-with-ref-to-forth-coming-deleti
On 14-12-2011 19:32, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelan wrote:
So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted
since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to
the new license if the .odbl database is to be "clean
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Weait"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming
deletions - implication
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelan
wrote:
So essentially all data that exist
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelan wrote:
> So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted
> since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to
> the new license if the .odbl database is to be "clean".
That's quite a conclusion that you
So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted
since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to
the new license if the .odbl database is to be "clean".
Cheerio John
On 14 December 2011 11:31, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011
Thank you, its nice to know these things. Fun stuff.
Cheerio John
On 14 December 2011 11:31, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Nick Whitelegg <
> nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Doesn't make any difference to the CTs, but I've noticed but I'm not the
>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Doesn't make any difference to the CTs, but I've noticed but I'm not the
> first named author of a few ways which I'm 99.99% sure that I created: the
> ways with the ID 2232-2235. I still remember the surveying/editing session
> in which
Doesn't make any difference to the CTs, but I've noticed but I'm not the first
named author of a few ways which I'm 99.99% sure that I created: the ways with
the ID 2232-2235. I still remember the surveying/editing session in which I
created the ways.
These were very early ways (spring 2006)
Yes.
There are a large number of situations were depending on
- sequence of edit operations
- intermediate upload and generation of new object ids
you will get different owners of objects.
This is why it is highly likely that split and mergers will not be
taken in to account in any automatic c
I was looking at the map that showed contributions from those who hadn't
agreed to the new terms. One section I found interesting since I knew I'd
mapped it first from a GPS trace I'd made but looking through the history I
noticed another name before mine who hadn't agreed to the new terms.
I sus
13 matches
Mail list logo
