Er, it was in the announcement of the downtime.

Between Sunday 1st of April 2012 (no joke) 8:00am (GMT / UTC) and the morning of the 4th of April 2012 the primary database server will be switched to read-only mode so that we can bring the new server (ramoth) onstream, bought thanks to your donations. […] When service is resumed, we will begin the license change as a background process, redacting any data whose authors have not consented to the new terms.

Depends on what their source is. If they’ve imported it from a public-domain source, then it’s not theirs, plain and simple - that would be an example where it would be safe to odbl=clean it. If the decliner has actually moved things, or has traced from something else, then odbl=clean would not be suitable. Something that would have been nice was the opposite odbl=dirty to explicitly tag objects known to come from incompatible sources, though understandably this would have been open to abuse by TWSNBN.

FWIW, this isn’t licence-changeover downtime, this is install-a-new-server downtime. The licence-changeover work will start after that (though not necessarily immediately).

I don’t know if they’ve changed, but half the time my problem with MapDust was that the report didn’t tell you where the person was going - it’s all well and good saying the app gave you unexpected directions, but we can’t even begin to figure out what’s wrong if we don’t know where you expected to go.

“His point is the map key really needs to be updated. “

No, he’s referring to this:

Someone had drawn in a bunch of non-existent features in northern Greenland, presumably to see what they all look like. As for testing, we have api06.dev.openstreetmap.org, but it looks like it isn’t rendered. I can see why - it’s intended for people to test software against, rather than for looking at.

I’m sure that things like this are exactly why we have the test environments.

I believe in certain other places, the phrase would be "Oh boy, here we go ..."

Did you take the names from on-the-ground survey? As in, visiting the village and seeing what's on the signs? If so, make sure you mention this should you have to report it to DWG.

Unfortunately, I don't believe we can do a straight upgrade from BY-SA 2.0 to 4.0, since we'd still have to go through this process, and we'd still be getting the inherent flaws (non-applicable in the US amongst others, uncertainty for reuse, etc.). If anything, the problem with the process has been that it's taken too long. We should have cut it off after a year back in 2008 before idiots started importing BY-SA data.

A POI need not be a literal point, and there's no reason to insist on such. If other people's software doesn't cope with a polygon POI, then their software is defective. The only reason to not do this is in the case of a building containing multiple POIs, such as a hotel with a public bar, or a block of flats with multiple entrances leading to different address ranges. Otherwise we get two objects representing one thing on the ground, and an opportunity for the data on the two to get out of sync.

Something else to remember is that the Bing imagery may be out of date, so without some local knowledge, you may be tracing buildings that just aren't there or missing some that are.

Nice idea, but you'll need a new name, since we already have two osmxapis. The second one is sometimes known as jxapi, since it's a Java reimplementation of the original xapi, but if you're aiming for Overpass then you're implementing something different to the other xapis.

The picture at http://pathetic.org.uk/former/a40m_westway/ is the sign on the Gloucester Terrace entrance. Is it still there?

chillly: "Cyclists and pedestrians" is misleading. Pedestrians enjoy special privileges, cyclists merely think they do. The law you would invoke used to be the Road Traffic Act 1984, which allows local authorities to place such restrictions through traffic roders. The equivalent power for trunk roads in London is held by Transport for London, who will undoubtedly have a copy of the relevant orders for you.

There were definitely signs in the eastbound direction last time I was there, both on the mainline and on the slips from Wood Lane. Perhaps somebody forgot to replace the old NO signs at the other end?

Reverted. Cyclists and pedestrians are still prohibited on the Westway, motorway status or not.

"1. all of the edits that I personally made, you can relicense."

Log in to that account. Hit the button. Scramble the password and never log in again. Job's a good'un.

The data loss is not a major problem. We'll lose data, and eventually we'll regain better data. We started from literally nothing, and now we have billions of nodes and millions of ways. The project is now seven years old. Maybe in another seven years we'll have data even better than what we now lose.

My only concern with the proposal is that it delays things even further, and extends the period of uncertainty beyond what will already have been around five years by April 2012.

"the data itself on there will be a matter of public record and hence shouldn't be subject to copyright"
Unfortunately, the law in the UK doesn't work that way. Unless you've got an explicit grant of permission, then you're extracting substantial amounts from their database, which potentiatlly infringes a separate right in and of itself.

The ground is right, everything else is just varying degrees of wrong. ;-)

It could be worse. I had someone add a road that didn't exist straight from StreetView and Locator. I wouldn't have minded as much if they hadn't done it after I'd left hints in the database to the effect of "no, really, this road isn't here".