Hi Andy, On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:56 PM Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > Andy from the DWG here. Apologies for the delay in getting around to this. > > (automatic translation into Italian below) > > Currently as I understand it: > > 1. The licence under which this data was released isn't compatible > with OSM > 2. The data quality isn't actually very good. > > With regard to (1) there is an option to try and obtain the data under a > compatible licence. However because of (2) we may not actually want to do > that, and want to revert it anyway. > Exactly. > If we do decide to revert it then we'll probably find that some data has > been modified by other users since. With this data we can again do one of > two things: > > 1. Leave it, because newer edits by other users may have corrected > problems > 2. Force through the revert, which will undo good mapping by people > unconnected with the import here. > > If the licence for the data isn't compatible then we'd normally tend to do > (2) rather than (1) here. Whichever we do there will be a lot of remapping > to do and a lot of tidying up needed - afterwards I suspect that there will > be things duplicated and things missing, however we do it. > It is my understanding local mappers waited for the revert. They didn't try to correct issues or build upon these data. > After we've finished any reversion we may then want to redact the data > because it wasn't compatible with OSM in the first place. If something is > redacted the history will no longer be visible in OSM. An example of what > something looks like after it has been redacted is > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/325344168/history . > The redaction should be mandatory since these data aren't licensed under a ODbL compatible license (and we have no waiver). If we'll get a waiver in future, we'll propose a proper import (with proper conflation!!!). > Before starting on any of this, I just wanted to make sure that my > understanding of the problem is correct: > > - The data to be reverted is all changesets by > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/fabioportinaro from > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69299082 onwards > - No other users have used the same data source directly > - The community thinks that a revert is the best way forward > > That's correct. > > > It would also be useful to know if anyone thinks that the data might be > available under a licence other than CC-BY-4.0 which might be compatible > with OSM. > CC-BY-4.0 is the license chosen by Regione Piemonte for all their open data. So the data aren't available under another license. Best regards, Andrea
_______________________________________________ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
