[talk-ch] Corrupt buildings

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Jul 25 13:27:56 CEST 2018


I wouldn't fix anything right now, likely the simplest thing is to write
a script that creates a new version of the objects before redaction.

What might be the issue is that the revert by Marc was redacted too.

Simon


Am 25.07.2018 um 13:20 schrieb BAK365:
> Hi,
>
> Why was there no notice beforehand? Or did I miss that? What are the
> next steps? Who is doing the cleaning up? Shall I manually correct
> these objects or whould that mean interfering in an ongoing procedure?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187372890
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414956838
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190736456
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/333945530
>
> While I of course appreciate the redaction work, IMHO the way it is
> (not) communicated is rather how not to ...
>
> Regards
> BAK365
>
>
>
>
>     ----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
>     Von : simon at poole.ch
>     Datum : 25/07/2018 - 10:29 (GMT)
>     An : talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>     Betreff : Re: [talk-ch] Corrupt buildings
>
>     Redaction tries to retain as much as possible of the work in the
>     changesets, in particular deletions are maintained (the last time
>     I looked at this in detail is a longish time ago, so I might be
>     wrong, naturally it could be argued that that behaviour doesn't
>     make sense post licence change). So in general the redaction
>     should have been applied post revert in this case, which doesn't
>     seem to be the case here.
>
>     Simon
>
>
>     Am 25.07.2018 um 10:09 schrieb _ dikkeknodel:
>>
>>     Hi Simon,
>>
>>      
>>
>>     I am not sure what you mean here, can you explain what you mean
>>     by ‘I doubt that something has gone wrong’?
>>
>>      
>>
>>     To my understanding the redaction should have brought the nodes
>>     and ways back to the state from before the copyright
>>     infringement. For the sample of buildings I checked that state
>>     was being a rectangular way tagged as building=yes and thus also
>>     4 nodes. Now the way has three nodes, and thus is a triangle. To
>>     me and probably most others this looks like a unsuccessful redaction.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     dikkeknodel
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *Van: *Simon Poole <mailto:simon at poole.ch>
>>     *Verzonden: *woensdag 25 juli 2018 09:55
>>     *Onderwerp: *Re: [talk-ch] Corrupt buildings
>>
>>      
>>
>>     I doubt that something has gone wrong.  A redaction is not a
>>     revert (aka
>>     it doesn't restore a previous state of an object), so the result
>>     depends
>>     on what happened in the changeset that is being redacted.
>>
>>     If a building was added then it will simply vanish, if the
>>     geometry was
>>     manipulated (for example by removing and adding a node) the results
>>     might not be what is "expected".
>>
>>     Simon
>>
>>
>>     Am 25.07.2018 um 09:41 schrieb Stefan Keller:
>>     > Hi Nelson
>>     >
>>     > 2018-07-25 8:29 GMT+02:00 _ dikkeknodel wrote:
>>     >> Something seems to have gone wrong with the redaction is my
>>     conclusion.
>>     > Indeed: https://osm.org/go/0CYTlJg8k--?way=317495841
>>     >
>>     > Any explanations why?
>>     >
>>     > :Stefan
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > 2018-07-25 8:29 GMT+02:00 _ dikkeknodel <dikkeknodel at hotmail.com>:
>>     >> Hi all,
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> I had a closer look at the naoliv’s redaction CS61021881.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> I see, many previously rectangular buildings have now become
>>     triangles or
>>     >> just an open L-shape.
>>     >>
>>     >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317495841
>>     >>
>>     >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317495891
>>     >>
>>     >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317487442
>>     >>
>>     >> etc.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> More complex shapes have also lost a node and became less
>>     complex with some
>>     >> very weird shapes.
>>     >>
>>     >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317487614
>>     >>
>>     >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317336799
>>     >>
>>     >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317336826
>>     >>
>>     >> etc.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> It is all over the place basically. If a look to the
>>     pre-redaction version
>>     >> of the buildings, they seem to be nicely rectangular.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> It also seems that the address data entered with CS60359203,
>>     CS60359697 and
>>     >> CS60359350 have been (mistakenly) redacted (the blue ones in
>>     achavi, tag
>>     >> change only). These CSs mention local knowledge as source and
>>     there is no
>>     >> mention in the changesets discussions of any problem.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Something seems to have gone wrong with the redaction is my
>>     conclusion.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Cheers,
>>     >>
>>     >> dikkeknodel
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> ________________________________
>>     >> Van: talk-ch <talk-ch-bounces at openstreetmap.ch> namens marc marc
>>     >> <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>
>>     >> Verzonden: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 2:13:37 AM
>>     >> Aan: talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>     >> Onderwerp: Re: [talk-ch] Corrupt buildings
>>     >>
>>     >> witch building in this changeset is corrupt after naoliv change
>>     >> and not before ?
>>     >>
>>     >> Le 25. 07. 18 à 01:26, Kt47uo5uVzW a écrit :
>>     >>> Check this: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=61021881
>>     >>>
>>     >>> No I'm not involved in any kind of this import/region.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Regards
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>> marc marc:
>>     >>>  > Hello,
>>     >>>  >
>>     >>>  > Le 25. 07. 18 à 00:25, Kt47uo5uVzW a écrit :
>>     >>>  >> I think the latest changesets from user 'naoliv' are
>>     erroneous.
>>     >>>  >> Can somewhere check and maybe revert this? Thanks.
>>     >>>  >
>>     >>>  > can you give an exemple ?
>>     >>>  > naoliv redact (hidde) data copied from Fribourg cadastre
>>     >>>  > (the licence of the canton of Fribourg doesn't allow it).
>>     >>>  > so a building should not be corrupted by this redact
>>     >>>  > but it should be already corrupt before.
>>     >>>  >
>>     >>>  > are you the guy that did the import ?
>>     >>>  >
>>     >>>  > Regards,
>>     >>>  > Marc
>>     >>>  > _______________________________________________
>>     >>>  > talk-ch mailing list
>>     >>>  > talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch <mailto:talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch>
>>     >>>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>>     >>>  >
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>     >>> talk-ch mailing list
>>     >>> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>     >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>>     >>>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> talk-ch mailing list
>>     >> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>     >> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> talk-ch mailing list
>>     >> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>     >> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>>     >>
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > talk-ch mailing list
>>     > talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>     > http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>>
>>      
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     talk-ch mailing list
>>     talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>     http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20180725/10a0abd2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit Binärdaten wurde abgetrennt...
Dateiname   : signature.asc
Dateityp    : application/pgp-signature
Dateigröße  : 488 bytes
Beschreibung: OpenPGP digital signature
URL         : <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20180725/10a0abd2/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the talk-ch mailing list