|
Hi, The changeset 5592567 seems to be adding lots of unwanted nodes. What is the best way to proceed here ? I contacted the author but he does not answer. I would review all the added nodes and revert(delete) only those who don't make sense. Unfortunately there are LOTS of nodes, it's hard to decide wether a node is useful AND some nodes have been already fixed or edited to something meaningful. What's the best to do here ? Just revert the entire changeset ? Manual review ? Anyone volunteer ? Thanks, Exxos. p.s. btw the nodes with name "GC?????" are actually GeoCache nodes. |
|
It is technically easy to run a script that deletes everything object from that changeset that has not been touched meanwhile. I would suggest that you discuss the matter on the talk-us mailinglist where, if the community agrees that deleting is the best option, you'll also find people capable of running such a script. |
|
Details of geocaches are subject to copyright, and should not be added to OSM. Any nodes that reveal the location or details of geocaches need to be deleted. Can you elaborate your statement? Geographic positions of objects are surely not copyrighted if they have been obtained via a valid source, e.g. surveyed on your own.
(24 Apr '14, 14:00)
scai ♦
2
The geocache listing pages on Geocaching.com are under the hider's copyright, but a set of coordinates can't be copyrighted. That being said, I just confirmed that the nodes starting with "GC" are indeed Geocaching.com geocaches, and these are definitely not things that need to be in OSM. It looks to me like sejohnson just got a bunch of miscellaneous waypoints from the web and uploaded them, many incorrectly tagged as bus stops, so I think the entire changeset is useless and any v1 nodes should be deleted.
(24 Apr '14, 16:55)
alester
I see, in that case you are absolutely right :)
(24 Apr '14, 17:34)
scai ♦
[In reply to Scai] If you discover a geocache by chance, probably nobody can stop you mapping its position and any details found at the location. However, data downloaded from Geocaching.com is subject to copyright.
(24 Apr '14, 19:15)
Madryn
Of course, Madryn. But you didn't mention Geocaching.com anywhere. That's why I was a little bit surprised about your answer.
(24 Apr '14, 20:26)
scai ♦
When I first saw that the caches were identified using their GC codes, I assumed that the codes must have been taken from geocaching.com. I later realised that they could be found by opening the cache and reading the log. One test would be whether the OSM locations match the geocaching.com locations; an exact match is unlikely given the accuracy of hand-held GPS receivers, so many exact matches might be taken as evidence of copying.
(24 Apr '14, 23:41)
Madryn
The semantics of copyright law notwithstanding, the locations of geocaches tagged as highway=bus_stop add no value to OSM and should be removed. I might take a look at that changeset tonight and see if I can do so.
(25 Apr '14, 00:27)
alester
showing 5 of 7
show 2 more comments
|
While randomly browsing the nodes in that changeset, I actually stumbled upon one that I myself deleted 3 years ago! I don't have a clue where the data came from, but the one node in my area that I deleted was tagged as a bus stop, had a meaningless name ("079", which doesn't correspond to any kind of known ref around here) and was in a location where there isn't and has never been a bus stop. The fact that the changeset consists of many such nodes scattered across the continent makes the data very dubious. Since it's 3 years old, a full revert of the changeset is out of the question now. I think someone would have to review any nodes that haven't been modified since this changeset.
...and no, I'm not volunteering! :)