On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > Oh, and, could we convince r_coastlines to accept the license? I've > put a LOT of work into fixing the coastlines (which were utter CRAP in > the first place), and I'm unenthusiastic about having them > lost. OSMInspector is reporting the wrong thing, by the way. Look at > http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753612 and you'll see a bunch > of nodes, only two supposedly touched by me. Yet if you click on any > node, say > http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=18666667 or > http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=18666670 you'll see that I've > touched them.
When displaying a way, mapki.com only shows changes that affect the way version. This includes node addition/removal but not moving existing nodes. I brought this up with Ian on IRC and the way it works, it really isn't practical to do deep node inspection as part of the way history. > Basically, the only thing left out of r_coastline's creation is > "source=PGS" which by now any sourcing has been completely > eliminated. I've edited A LOTTA LOTTA coastlines of New York State in > a similar manner. > > Easiest fix is for r_coastlines to accept. The second easiest is to make use of the odbl=clean tag that the OSM inspector allows. Assuming of course that this tag will also be respected in the final process on April 1. This needs an answer from... someone. (LWG?) Of course you would only want to do this if you can vouch for your edits having removed any usefulness of previous editors. In this instance it certainly sounds like this would be the case. I have similar ways along the interstates in Kansas on which I will be using this. This is documented here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector#Per-object_Overrides_with_odbl.3Dclean Toby _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
