OpenStreetMap
Remapping is boring, and takes away time from doing real mapping.
However, with 1st April date to expunge non licence compatible data from the map, it is not too soon to start remapping.
In Australia, only about half the map is compatible with the new licence conditions. About a quarter is the IP of 44 licence rejectors, and the remaining quarter is made up of about 1,500 non-acceptors, who are signing up at the cracking pace of around .22% per week. It's clear I can't wait for the non-acceptors to sign back in.
I've made a start on my local area, and I've quickly learnt that it's quicker to just replace stuff colour-coded as affected than to work out if the changes made by rejectors/non-acceptors are critical or not by perusing the history.
At least doing local changes, I know what the streets are called, where the bus stops are, etc, and can do it all from desktop mapping. To remap the entirety of Australia by 1st April is, I think, an impossibility.
Discussion
Comment from z-dude on 19 November 2011 at 21:59
I think your "Remapping" is really just copying someone else's work.
Copying the mapping of someone who has refused the new license isn't any different from copying stuff off of a google map from an open license point of view.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1508469663
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/312165847/history
From an openness point of view, the new map should be created without recently looking at the deleted map items.
Comment from joakimfors on 20 November 2011 at 13:14
How is it copying if he's tracing from an sanctioned source or from surveying/GPS tracks?
Comment from joakimfors on 20 November 2011 at 16:29
Sorry alexz, didn't see your links as I hadn't scrolled down. That is a clear example of copying. I apologize for my hasty comment. :)
Comment from Rovastar on 22 November 2011 at 03:56
Alexz,
How on earth did you make that conclusion?
There is nothing wrong with what El Segundo can't win did.
Look at the sat imagery of the place you can clearly see the bench there.
I consider it very responsible to delete of those that can't and don't want to or purposely try and derail the project by not signing up, and then recreate it.
It amazes me that people always think the worst here. I question there motivations to the project at times
I could have easily done he same in that situation even without ever seeing the place. And that is what I do if I see a node that is questionable then I will delete it and recreate it from sat imagery, local knowledge, etc. However here I would be accused of doing something illegal......
Comment from Unusual User Name on 22 November 2011 at 09:12
I'm sorry, but I can't see how the example given is copying, but I'm open to a more detailed argument. I certainly reject that it is a "clear example of copying".
I ride past this bench just about every day. I've been aware of it's existence for at least ten years. I've sat on it multiple times.
I have mapped my area on the ground block by block, and if I didn't previously touch an object by another mapper, it's because I agreed that it was correct, current and tagged correctly.
I am only replacing objects I can vouch for. As an example, further along the river is
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316736348
Even though I know there are barbecues generally along the river, and even that they're wood fuelled, I can't say for sure there is one here. I'll look for it next time I go past.
The non-CT compliant objects are a reminder that something may need mapping there, but that's no different to noticing a discrepancy between a local street directory and openstreetmap and checking it out via Bing or on the ground. I can't see an IP violation.