<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>As way of a clarification: the LWG was not proposing to block
children from answering on changeset comments (given these are
public and not so easily misued), but not allowing access to the
blog and the internal message system.</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.09.2018 um 20:22 schrieb Michael
Reichert:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c7ecc597-e9e1-a44f-7be7-756e0c5f5caf@michreichert.de">
<pre wrap="">Hi Frederik,
Am 24.09.2018 um 17:57 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is the opposite true as well - would/should someone given a cool-off
period for being a dick in a discussion still be allowed to do mapping?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
No. Anyone who is able to edit the map data should be able and has to
answer sensible questions.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Should a normal user block perhaps simply come in two flavours, "block
mapping only" and "block all"?
It has been suggested that blocking *all* communication functions might
be problematic because one thing you might expect from someone you have
blocked is that they apologise, or set something right, which they might
not be able to do without the ability to write messages.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If we implement the new block type proposed by ika-chan!, the DWG can
place a type 1 block (editing block) on the account and tell him to
aplogoise. If the user fails to do so, it's a sign of bad intentions and
a full block can be placed.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Do we need a full array of permissions - "can change user name", "can
edit own user page", "can write personal messages", etc. - and the
ability to short-time suspend any and all of them?
Thoughts are welcome.
This also ties in somewhat with a separate discussion, on how a
prerequisite for allowing children on the platform might be that we can
disable the "social" functions of an account. In that case it would not
be a short-term block, but a whole class of accounts that can edit, but
not participate in discussions (for their own protection). I'm not sure
that can work at all (given that the ability to contact a mapper is very
important to us). Maybe such accounts would have to be linked to a
"responsible" parent account who then gets the messages...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think that any mapper should have the possibility to ask another
mapper any question on their edits. Currently, we often place a 0-hour
block on accounts who fail to respond and continue editing. What shall I
myself as a mapper do if the user whose edits look strange cannot answer
my question why he deleted the restaurant? Shall he/she restore it
because the child does not respond?
The concept of hiding minors from communications might work if they are
asked/told to map just due to their ability to draw geometries, e.g. in
an enclosed system or for mapping a few villages in an area where no
data has been before and nobody else is mapping. But once they edit
existing data, "conflicts" (questions and comments) with the community
will arise.
It might be possible to solve these issues but figuring out solutions is
up to those who need minors below 16 years mapping.
Best regards
Michael
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dev@openstreetmap.org">dev@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>