On 10 January 2012 13:53, David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >> Michael Collinson wrote: >> >>> +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean >>> >> >> Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, >> it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and >> which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :) >> > > Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the > page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, > not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from > itself to itself and actually have changed anything? > > If odbl=clean is OK for this then that's great, but I am troubled that I > may go to a lot of trouble to deal with these and then find they get > removed anyway. The lack of clear direction is very frustrating (as is the > apparent need to do more work than necessary). It would be so much easier > if we knew for sure what the rules actually are. > That is pretty much my point also. I will do the necessary work when there is a stable and reasonable description of what that work is and is not and I have confidence that the description is stable. Hearing that there is disagreement on what the (as yet undocumented) odbl=clean tag means and how it should be used doesn't excite me to do the work yet! To help the process along I have created an simple article for odbl=clean here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean Regards, Peter > > David > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
