On 20/03/2008, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > well, yes but you're moving the goal posts here. what you're > > suggesting is no different in concept to a user looking up street > > names in google maps/microsoft live maps/etc. and adding them to the > > database, having traced the shape from the yahoo imagery. so, we treat > > it in the same way: unless and until we (or the owners of the data) > > suspect copying is going on, we assume people are playing by the rules > > and getting their data legally, and do nothing > > > I'm not moving any goalposts and this is very different from copying data > from "forbidden" sources.
ok, i misunderstood. sorry > I'm also not talking about causing trouble, but about improving the quality > of > the data in the database. > > I'm talking about combining the best parts of the data from two "approved" > sources and reflecting both sources in the source tag. This is not possible, > without deleting and recreating the original object, if the source tag > becomes read-only. sorry for the long-winded response, got a lot to say here, i want to cover every eventuality. :-) right, got you. a valid point, in principle in practice, what two sources are you talking about? one traditionally-produced, expensive data set (such as linz, tiger or AND) plus one osm, user-generated, guy-on-a-bike, source? or (i presume) two traditionally-produced, expensive data sets? in the first case, there is room for two attributions - one is the proposed read-only tag, called attribution, which is set to 'linz' or whatever. the second is from the edit history, retrieved by the API, set to the username of an osm user, updated whenever the item is tweaked (i.e. write and read) in the second case,....well i see this as unlikely. how any orgs are willing to go to the cost of creating a duplicate data set for an area (by which i mean same data, same area), when they can get one that exists immediately? yes, some might do this. thinking practically, are we likely to have two conflicting datasets for one area from two separate orgs? the likelihood of getting any traditionally-produced, expensive data sets for a given area is small, and i certainly wouldn't want to base an important decision on the basis of us maybe having two! has this happened/likely to happen anywhere else? but, lets' assume there are two data sets (covering similar data types) created for a given area, and both creating orgs are nice enough to donate them to us (!). one will likely be better quality than the other, so we ignore the not so good data at a given point, or just don't include one set at all. even if we did use both sets, how do we merge the two, in a useful way, which 'averages' the position of both?. ok, it's not just about the position, but about the tags as well. but i am doubtful there will be a case where two data sets cover the same elements in the same area, and one not be incontrovertibly better than the other. looking solely at the situation that has brought this up: linz is the definitive source for this info. there is no-one in nz with better property and road information. there will not be a traditionally created data set we can find that will have more info on roads and properties, and i would imagine a similar suggestion wuld exist in other countries you make relevant points, but i'm not convinced it is a very likely situation in practice, and it's a lot of data to say 'no' to, on the basis of a big 'if' _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
