"Many of these people may not have agreed to the license terms probably because they stopped using OSM, haven't noticed that there's new license terms, or haven't had time to read them. Don't just delete the roads they surveyed for that reason."

Why do you want these user's, soon to dead, data in the db?
If you see some of this data why do you want to keep it. Dead users data?!
I will remove the data from my local area and recreate it better. Nearly always you can create better mapping if you put the time in.

I think the problem here is some people don't like the fact that I edit others data. Nothing to do with the fact that of the license as I am making better data for all.

I will be editing the others data anyway all I am doing is removing old data and creating it again from scratch by myself.

"Also, even conventional GPS's aren't 100% accurate; they can have a margin of error of up to several yards."

True, but as I am mostly a bedroom mapper, it doesn't bother me too much. I can map buildings, formation of roads, etc better than gps anyway.

"Where can I view the statistics that lead you to this conclusion?"

Well I think only 2 or 3 people has appeared to reverse their decision from the graph linked above and the number of declines increases.

Also looking at http://odbl.de/ there are a lot of ways (25+%), etc that will be effected still by non-signing up. Not just decliners I am also thinking about old editors.

"Perhaps, perhaps not.

What is wrong with erring on the side of caution? If you wait then we'll be in the same position and you've lost nothing. If you start destroying other people's work left right and centre then you risk creating bad feeling and damaging the community for years to come."

I don't see that. There is no difference from me editing an area/way/etc and improving the map. I am not spitefully doing anything. The map gets a better map as I have added more detail to the area where before it was poor.

The only difference is I have replaced it why my version rather than a co-edit with theirs.

Are people really so possessive over their own data?

"Why?"

Well they choose decline for the moment at least. I expect many choose decline because they have no intention of continuing a few will revert back but not many. I expect the amount of decline to increase overall.

"Because they believe that it isn't going to disappear, perhaps?"

Wishful thinking, perhaps?

I don't agree, there will be a large numbers of lost data. I still think the overall lost data will be huge for even 10% of people that decline and/or cannot (left the project, have no interest, not using their email address, denounce all technology and live in a cave, died, etc)

Also these could well be older edits with major trunk roads, etc. Why not start to mitigate this now?

If you are mapping an area then it is better to delete and recreate rather than edit. For example a park might only be mapped very roughly say just a square when, in fact, it is a more complex boundary shape. I can only see deleting and recreating this as the best opinion to save time/effort in the long run. I have no fear over editing someone else's work and don't mind if you do it to my work if you add more detail.

From my point of view I think they will be vandalise my work. I am sorry I am not going to pander to these people.

I think clicking on decline is stating very clearly that they don't want to continue. I think it is naive to think most of these will change their minds.

Why on earth would you want to edit something and have it disappear soon after surely you want to keep your edits. I have been doing a load of road straightening recently adding masses of points to make roads curve correctly.

The logical option is to now delete the existing way and recreate it from scratch. If we do it like that we will save our edits and they will not be wiped out.

I think you are infact making more work for yourselves if you keep this tainted data in there.

I don't understand the many negative comments. I think waiting is the wrong option here, editing stuff from a dead users who will take away all that object/way if they are the original author is completely a waste of time. I think more should be aware of this.

I would rather the make these changes now than when suddenly all the data is deleted. Cut off the dead wood before it consumes more.

I didn't realise that those who declined could still edit. What is the point of that!?

No not at all. I am deleting others work and then recreating it in my own way - bing imagery, etc. I am not copying their work in any way. I am deleting their work - the complete opposite of copying it.

I don't see I am doing anything wrong. In fact I would encourage other to do this too. I am trying to get this done now rather than later when we have to.

Like I said there will be large areas that will not be mapped at some point because of the license change. Their data is dead data and frankly why should my hard work be lost editing all the curves in the road when the original author hasn't or doesn't want to sign up. It is better to wipe out there work and start again rather then editing their initial way.

I presumed others where doing something similar. Why are you not alexz?

@Vincent de Phily
True I expected a dedicated device to be better than a phone. But between devices...I don't get it so your new device better or just different?? how do you know? Do you then go and remap to the new standards? Are you going to walk down the centre of the road? I thought GPS traces were now used to get a rough idea of where you where and then use bing imagery.

Anyway I don't think I will change and a new generation of people is coming in that will just use bing imagery. Mostly it sounds like FUD the pro-GPS arguments not to use it.

So after a year or so of planning this the situation is unclear. Great, way to go OSM. So really I should be deleting all ways I see and recreating them. I often edit existing ones.

So half or so of all objects in the database will be deleted? Great......

Also I thought the modern way to use Bing imagery now and less GPS traces. That is what most seem to be doing. Otherwise it is very tricky to map golf courses for example. Do people really work around all groups of trees and bunkers, etc? Surely not anymore.

To be honest I just use Bing imagery now. GPS traces seems to be so off (although I only use a mobile phone)

Also I have a yet to see a decent road with any curves mapped with any detail. The bing maps you can get to precision accuracy for the formation of the road/building/etc (I use the middle of the road/road marking for better accuracy and easier to map some of the main road/motorways are shockingly bad) the alignment may be off (I am sure all GPS as off anyway to some degree and they never agree) but the formation of the way is always going to be accurate. I don't see how you can get the formation of the ways any more accurate than sat imagery.

I only reason I would not use Bing is for old imagery and where things are mapped already in open spaces.

I have also realigned some imagery with bing and it completed the UK missing streets data in areas I haven't even visited before. They were off by more the agreed tolerances.

I have never entered the OBDL debate so could you summarise why you don't want to do that.

Also If someone edits your data then I presume it is then becomes *their* work. That is the way it seem to me when I edit others ways (tweaking the road layout, etc). Is that the case? and what are you going to do with that.

I think the opening reads a little techie. If it is going out to the general public then I wouldn't not mention pdf's and start with the basics like mention
Openstreetmap is a website (OSM.ORG).(you don't actually say it is a website in your piece). It displaying maps of the world, etc. I think you jump to quickly into editing and the hard sell.

I find once people start using OSM as a/the map then edits will follow. Explain maybe that OSM can have public footpaths, POI locally that other maps do not.

They are the most useful as a user of the map. That after looking up there own street. Sell the fact that OSM is the best map of your local area and improving all the time. It is going to the community and even if they choose not to edit (it is scary thought for some newbie people) they should want to use the best map of the local area.

Maybe a 'so why not look up your local area and see how it is mapped.....'

I know we are all mappers and we want to others to edit the maps but I like to stand back a little and I think it can all sound sometimes too heavy to the average person. If we compare to wikipedia again most people that go to the site have no account/never edited a page. If people just start using OSM as their main map edits will follow naturally......

Phew sorry I didn't mean to sound so heavy there. Overall nice article and congrats on getting OSM in print.:)

Yeah in general JOSM is better than Potlatch2 but for a quick edit Potlatch2 is really handy.
Glad to help and always good to go after the low hanging fruit. :)

There are large parts of the bradford/Leeds area that are unmapped and glad to see there is a new mapper in that area. I was in leeds this weekend and did a few roads but not much activity up there.

Also use OSlocator (background in the potlatch2 editor or here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main?showMinor=true ) to see what other roads may be missing/different to the OS maps in your area.

? I don't understand ?

There is nothing on the overall map of a boundary for the peak district. I am the map rendered at openstreetmap.org.

Mine hasn't even shown up for me yet for the peak district or any others.

You can see the new forest and snowdonia but the rest I think are missing. IF you said it is done then why can't I see it? *shrug*

It said incomplete on the link above and I presume that means you have not completed an area.

Looking at this page:
osm.org/browse/relation/78528

It appears to have an area. So why does it not appear on the map.
From the link page above "View area on larger map"

osm.org/?minlon=-2.10227&minlat=53.0302565&maxlon=-1.5155962&maxlat=53.5979022

Yeah I saw that page. I thought it would be better to a baseline rough border for the national parks first then it is easier to add details. So the ones that have done detail of the boarders can make it more complete.

Good job, ignore the paranoid here about using other sources. As long as you don't copy directly is it ok AFAIC.

Comparing stuff offline I can never see a problem as if you find anomalies and check by hand. Ask people, walk street, other legal sources, etc

What on earth is wrong with verifying?

There is nothing wrong with that at all.

I know from mailing list chats years ago many are paranoid about copyright sources but there is nothing at all with checking it with what you think is the correct street name.
If you get a situation where the names are different you can recheck this yourself.

And taking photos of the street signs is way over the top, what are you people on?

If you know of the streets you could guestimate the locations of them in certain scenerios. e.g. A new road that connects road a to road b and certain points in a straight line. Again I would see nothing wrong, and I cannot imagine legally how anything can be wrong with verifying this with other sources, as long as you don't change anything.

The purists will no doubt pipe up again now but if someone can state legally why this breaks any copyright I am all ears. I am so confused why you make it so difficult for yourselves at times.