NOTICE: is no longer in use from 1st March 2024. Please use the OpenStreetMap Community Forum

Please help me interpret this situation. In my area, vast (I believe I used "obscene" in another comment) amounts of data have been redacted. I am looking at a history of just one node from the OSMI Redaction Bot View. This node has been "modified" by the bot according to the legend (in reality, it jumped a few hundred feet off to the side along with some other nodes in a way, creating a nice zigzag). Clicking on its history shows that the author agreed to the license. Clicking on the user's name suggests that a)he was responsible for introducing one of the early TIGER loads and, thus, for a lot of "baseline" data for the area and b)that he "Accepted about 2 years ago".

So what gives, and can his contributions be unredacted?

asked 01 Oct '12, 23:36

ponzu's gravatar image

accept rate: 0%

This is the full history of the node (which anyone can extract from a recent history planet dump):

  • created 2007-11-19 by DaveHansenTiger (v1)
  • moved 160 metres 2008-10-22 by strol8 (non-agreer) (v2, v3)
  • unnecessary tags cleared 2010-01-07 by woodpeck_fixbot (v4)
  • reverted to initial coordinates 2012-07-19 by redaction bot (v5)

Since v2-v4 contained the modified coordinates the copyright of which we ascribe to user strol8, these versions are invisible, and the node was reverted to its v1 location by the redaction bot.

permanent link

answered 02 Oct '12, 08:09

Frederik%20Ramm's gravatar image

Frederik Ramm ♦
accept rate: 23%

edited 02 Oct '12, 08:17

I think you're misinterpreting the deep history viewer.

DaveHansenTiger did indeed accept the new licence and his data has been preserved.

A subsequent editor made some changes to this data, but didn't agree to the licence. It was these subsequent edits that had to be rolled back. (Given that the place in question is LA, I'd hazard a guess that this editor was Blars Blarson.)

Therefore the node in question has been reverted to its original state, as first created by DaveHansenTiger. It hasn't been deleted: if you compare the two versions, you'll see that v5 and v1 are exactly the same (with the exception of removing unnecessary TIGER tags).

permanent link

answered 02 Oct '12, 00:16

Richard's gravatar image

Richard ♦
accept rate: 18%

Okay, that makes sense - in a crazy sort of way. I am still trying to understand what made the select nodes jump off to the side, accounting for the new zigzag shape of the way. Is it the fact that DaveHansenTiger had created the way in the wrong place (or rather that TIGER had it in the wrong place) and that it was moved to the correct location by at least two users, one of whom did not accept the license and the other did?

(02 Oct '12, 00:32) ponzu

See the link to the node's history you posted, the node is at its initial position (again). So there is no jump for this node regarding the initial shape of the way. Seems like the way has now its original shape back and some other non-agreeing user fixed it later but this fix was redacted.

(02 Oct '12, 06:12) scai ♦

ponzu: DaveHansenTiger created the way in the place the Tiger data had it. Tiger data was of very variable quality across the US. If you've not seen the list of common problems listed in the wiki they are at

(02 Oct '12, 08:42) EdLoach ♦

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text]( "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:


question asked: 01 Oct '12, 23:36

question was seen: 3,873 times

last updated: 02 Oct '12, 08:42

NOTICE: is no longer in use from 1st March 2024. Please use the OpenStreetMap Community Forum