Robin Paulson wrote: >Sent: 19 March 2008 7:56 AM >To: Cartinus >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] import of dataset for new zealand > >On 19/03/2008, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anybody wanting (semi-)read-only tags in OSM should read the discussions >about >> the edit war in Cyprus to see how futile they are for this purpose. >> >> Can't edit a tag? Just delete the whole object and create it anew. > >true, but is that really an issue here? why (in this context, with no >disputes of the magnitude of those in cyprus) would someone do that? >what if someone does delete a road sourced from linz, and then draws >it in again? the source of the information for that road is no longer >linz, it's the person who re-drew it, isn't it? >
Correct, if someone deletes data and starts anew then the new data has no link with the old, provided it wasn't derived from the old. Derived data is much greyer, since it's likely that with time most objects that get placed in the database will be further edited, either to change their spatial aspects or to add additional information. Once the data has been through a number of changes its really impossible to say that it originated from one or more parties unless you minutely interrogate the history of each object. This is one of the reasons why I firmly believe that nobody really owns the data they put in the database, the reality is that individuals and organisations contribute to the pool. We all have to accept that we are making these contributions for the good of the project, not because it puts our or their names in lights for being associated with the most data. It should be the same for organisations. If linz is happy to see their data contributed for the good of all then that's great, if they want to see their name associated with their data then we can do that by adding source tags when its imported and using an appropriate username for the import. We can also provide generic attribution like we give to anyone else on the wiki, via the news/blog and elsewhere as we did for instance with AND. Beyond that linz needs to be happy that their data will become diluted with time. This is probably the most compelling reason why visual attribution on mapping created from the database just cannot work. I hope that you can persuade Linz that releasing their data under a modified attribution approach to the one they prescribe is not about OSM wanting to have their data only in its own terms. OSM appreciates greatly major contributions of data and we like to give prominent coverage to those that do so. The issue is about keeping the approach generic, so that we have one rule that fits all, as anything less will be impracticable with time. best of luck with the discussion Cheers Andy >> For a more practical example related to mass imports: >> The waterbodies from the AND import in the Netherlands are often less >accurate >> than the Yahoo aerial imaging that has recently become available here. >Now I >> can "tug" at the polygon from the AND import till it conforms better to >the >> Yahoo image and put something in the source tag that reflects both >sources. >> If the source tag was read-only, then I'd delete the polygon from the >AND >> import and trace a new one from the Yahoo image. The net effect would be >a >> break in the edit history, because nothing links the new polygon to the >old >> one. > >if you deleted the AND data and then re-drew it, the lake would not >then be sourced from AND, so there is no need to attribute them. it's >a derivative work of you and yahoo. > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
