OpenStreetMap
This way was hit by the Redaction bot, but only myself and Mbiker’s imports user touched this way.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/41789598/history
in the potlatch editor, Mbiker’s import account worked on rev 2, and I worked on rev3 and rev4. In the way history, revs 2,3,and 4 are redacted.
What gives?
Discussion
Comment from z-dude on 25 July 2012 at 10:24
also.. way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/41789599/history was redacted?
Comment from RM87 on 25 July 2012 at 10:34
You should post it on rebuild list: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rebuild
Comment from z-dude on 25 July 2012 at 10:38
interesting. Well, I think there may have been a bug. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/31158977/history also redacted, the list of people editing that map include mbiker’s imports and myself on that road as well.
Comment from z-dude on 25 July 2012 at 10:51
also.. way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50313448/history is this because it was traced from Yahoo imagery?
Comment from Vclaw on 25 July 2012 at 11:13
It sounds like someone else had edited those ways, but they had not agreed to the licence change. So their edits are redacted.
And Potlatch will not show the redacted versions in the history.
Comment from z-dude on 25 July 2012 at 11:23
No, that’s not the case.
Some lakes I added got redacted as well. I traced those lakes from Yahoo imagery back in 2011. Are we deleting everything which was traced from Yahoo imagery?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=49.99804&lon=-123.13485&zoom=15
Comment from z-dude on 25 July 2012 at 11:32
Also, here’s another example where Wbski (accepted) traced out a track with Yahoo, then I traced some stuff with Bing, then the whole thing gets redacted.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/92818746/history
Comment from Vclaw on 25 July 2012 at 11:59
In that example the nodes have been redacted. Presumably the track was traced by someone else previously, then Wbski split the way for some reason. So it was a ‘new’ way, but mostly using ‘old’ nodes.
Comment from z-dude on 25 July 2012 at 14:30
Well, I can account for the changesets for the track above that segment ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50313444) versions 2, and 4. and the way below that segment which I drew: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/89546425
If the way was split, then the unsplit way would have been seen in either of these 2 changesets.
changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6656135?way_page=1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6824872
In my opinion, the way was never touched by anyone who did not accept the new terms of service.
Comment from z-dude on 25 July 2012 at 14:53
If this way 50313444 was split from a previous way to the west, then it would account for rev 3 of this way in WBSKI’s changlog of http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6824872
My suspicion is that there’s a glitch in the redact bot which assumes that some nodes are ‘bad’ based on a date of edit and Yahoo and the date at which a user accepted the new license.
ie, if I didn’t accept the license until after these were traced out.
Comment from Richard on 26 July 2012 at 00:07
No, it certainly doesn’t do that. You can read the source if you want to check.
Comment from z-dude on 28 July 2012 at 02:19
Or the people can check that their bot is working correctly.
Comment from chriscf on 28 July 2012 at 10:40
As far as anyone knows, it was working correctly.
Comment from pnorman on 26 August 2012 at 02:37
For way 41789598 tags were added by Scocasso who didn’t accept, so those tags have to be hidden.
For way 31158977 highway=residential was removed in v5 then added in v6.
For way 92818746 most of the nodes (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/639232838) appear to be from amai who didn’t accept, so the nodes got deleted which required changing the way.