<pedant><br><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Heathrow&aq=&sll=53.482836,-2.180099&sspn=0.080494,0.222988&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Heathrow,+Hounslow,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.495653,-0.450954&spn=0.022497,0.078964&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.495681,-0.451607&panoid=gjN7Vihx-29MP9zua09w3g&cbp=12,91.33,,0,7.84">http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Heathrow&aq=&sll=53.482836,-2.180099&sspn=0.080494,0.222988&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Heathrow,+Hounslow,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.495653,-0.450954&spn=0.022497,0.078964&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.495681,-0.451607&panoid=gjN7Vihx-29MP9zua09w3g&cbp=12,91.33,,0,7.84</a><br>
</pedant><br><br>Carry on...<br><br>:)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Peter Miller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peter.miller@itoworld.com">peter.miller@itoworld.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 March 2011 15:55, Tom Hughes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tom@compton.nu" target="_blank">tom@compton.nu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On 13/03/11 15:41, Ed Loach wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
You've probably seen the numerous edits by chriscf. Can anyone<br>
explain<br>
the purpose of these edits& what the the tags below even mean?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can try, but<br></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br>The bot appears to be adding a source:maxspeed to roads that have speed limits of 60 mph and 70 mph deducing that these are actually 'national speed limits' rather than numeric speed limits. I am not aware of there being any numeric 60 and 70 mph limits in the UK so that does seem to be a reasonable sound deduction actually.<br>
<br>The bot then adds a note asking someone else to go to the effort of checking the new tag and removing the tag. I think this is unreasonable. If the bot is robust (which I think it is), and is tested/approved (which it doesn't seem to be - see below) then I think the note field would be unnecessary.<br>
<br>What he has not done is add a link to a wiki page for the bot to the changeset which is what is expected in Wikipedia and I think should be done here.<br><br>I am not aware that there is even a wiki page for the bot or that it has a name which also isn't helpful.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I've had no reply to an email sent to him a couple of days ago<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
nor have I, so it is mainly guesswork.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Which means he is clearly in violation of point 3 "discuss your plans" of the automated edits code of conduct:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct</a><br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Agreed and I consider that use of unapproved bots should be considered as vandalism and that not discussing plans even after the event makes is worse.<br><br>Incidently I notice that chriscj has also been ruffling feathers on the wiki by ignoring community rules as well:<br>
<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Chriscf" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Chriscf</a><br><br>Can I suggest that someone contacts him again and says that if he doesn't engage in conversation then it will be escalated to the Data Working Group. Personally I don't consider that a revert is necessary (even if that was possible) but I do think we need to be clear on the rules around bots and enforce them going forward.<br>
<br><br>Regards,<br><br><br>Peter<br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Not to mention point 4 as well...<div><br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Tom Hughes (<a href="mailto:tom@compton.nu" target="_blank">tom@compton.nu</a>)<br>
<a href="http://compton.nu/" target="_blank">http://compton.nu/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br></div><div><div></div><div>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>