<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Mar 21, 2019, 3:29 PM by m@rtijn.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">The benefit is that it gives mappers a reason to examine places - not just the disappeared feature itself but also the area around it - that would otherwise go unexamined. Since we have so much unexamined space in the U.S., any opportunity to spark mappers’ curiosity about some of that space, is a welcome trigger. <br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">It may feel like a time sink for some, but my hope is that others will feel it’s an interesting exercise to improve the map. <br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I think that existing issues detected by say Osmose are more than enough to encourage fixing stuff.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><a href="http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/">http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/</a> has massive amount of things to fix, even in well <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">mapped areas.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div>Willing mappers are bottleneck, so whenever rare of bot-fixable<br><div style="16px" text-align="left">problems happens I think that it is a good idea to use it and spend human mapping time<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">on something more useful.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><div style="16px">And if there is any danger of any area in USA running out of Maproulette or Osmose tasks - <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">let me know and I will create something.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Especially Wikipedia-related one, as side effect of my project of finding tourism attractions<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">based on OSM data I created validator detecting various issues with wikipedia and wikidata tasks,<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">if anyone is interested I may run it for some part of USA.<br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class="">Stepping back a bit, the urge to fix previous automated edits with new automated fixes is understandable, but it may lead to a more casual approach to imports and automated edits, because we basically say with each fix that ill-informed automated map edits can always be fixed with more automated edits later. We’ve already gone down that path in the U.S. quite far, so we should proceed with extra care - unless we as a community decide that that is the nature of OSM in this country. It isn’t to me.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I fully support proper discussion before doing automatic changes, especially on larger scale and<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">ones that will delete items making them harder to reverse.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">And I would be really irritated if someone would use this automatic edit proposal to <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">support "my edit requires no discussion, after all sooner or later someone will fix my mess".<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div> </body>
</html>