SOSM has commented on the following diary entries
|Contributor numbers revisited and empty changesets galore||about 1 month ago||
I haven't been following iD developement all too closely, but an OSM editor is one of those things that tend to mature fairly fast in real use. It is clearly not out of the question that there have been significant improvements in iD itself (relevant to the this discussion, there have naturally been a lot of improvements in general), but it could just as well be improved browsers.
If I get around to it, I'll produce some numbers on all empty changesets vs. editors given that any issues will affect all users and not just first timers.
But as you say, it is good news that the issues have been dropping.
|Identifying Imports in OSM data||3 months ago||
One possible refinement is to ignore or at least list in a class of their own, "bot" accounts (for example both woodpeck accounts don't actually introduce any new data).
|OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike||6 months ago||
[the following is naturally only my personal reading of the ODbL]
Your basic premise that "mixing" data is an issue is false.
The ODbL specifically allows aggregation of data via the concept of the "Collective Database", only the OSM derived component of such a database needs to be ODbL licenced.
Only if you actually modify your (proprieitary and other) non-OSM data on the basis of the data/information from OSM is your data subject to the share alike terms. Example: apply road surface tags from OSM to road vector data from a third party, then the result is derieved from OSM data and needs to be shared.
Ir is particularly important to note If you modify OSM data for example by improving the position changing/adding tags, yes, the resulting dataset must be licenced on ODbL terms, but it in no way effects the legal status of your original data such changes may have been based on.
|OpenStreetMap - Increasing diversity||7 months ago||
@tordanik while I fully support the notion of the foundation not defining goals for "OSM" and imposing them on the community (it is not quite clear by what kind of mechanism something along such lines could even be done), I do believe that the foundation can very well define goals for itself and support work on issues that it believes does not get enough attention.
|Attribution and all that (a rant)||7 months ago||
@dieterdreist you fail to show a practical way of attacking the issue. Since the OSMF is not the licensor of the data it is not a direct party to any legal questions surrounding the use of the data. As has been pointed out many many many times there is a large amount of legal uncertainty surrounding the protection of data with a CC-by SA licence in the USA, which in the end was one of the major reasons we changed the licence in the first place, this makes the risk for an affected individual to try and rectify the situation rather large, and AFAIK there have been no sucessful attempts to do that.