> On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Incidentally, is just "knowing the footpaths" evidence enough to tag with > > "odbl=clean"? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with "iffy" > > sources? > > "Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions > from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...] > *and where those contributions have since been superceded or "washed > out" by subsequent changes*" > > Emphasis mine. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner. However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has changed. > > Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the > tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it, > and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I > don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if > it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging > anything with it. I think that's why I hadn't really bothered until now. To my mind, I was generally just going to wait until things were deleted and then create my own version, but I was inspired by Nick Austin's efforts, to attempt to do something first.
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb