<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Ed Avis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eda@waniasset.com">eda@waniasset.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
</div>Only the 'why'<br>
not the 'what' needs to be stated. That normally shouldn't be more than one<br>
sentence.<br><br></blockquote><div><br>You are two, with David Earl saying that. But that's a big difference with what Frederik and others are saying. They want a summary, a 'what' and 'why', not just a 'why'. <br>
<br>Again, most of the 'what' could be summarized automically ("20 POI's added", "2 ways displaced", "5 restrictions added", etc) and is far better than reading comments. I have seen so many nice comments from newcomers where changesets contained so many mistakes...<br>
About the 'why', I can already tell you :<br>- if someone displaces 20 nodes, the 'why' is because this person things that his source is more accurate than the previous contribution. The 'why' is a more accurate source.<br>
- if someone adds 100 buildings in an empty area, it's because this person found a source for those buildings.<br>- if someone renames a pub or a restaurant, it's because this person thinks that his knowledge is more recent than the previous contribution (source=survey or personnal knowledge)<br>
</div></div><br>About the required comment in JOSM, I think that JOSM is the only editor doing this. Remember that I'm the one who first complained about this feature on this list and after a long discussion the compromise was to repeat the previous comment (which is good enough for me). The proposal to make a pop-up explaining comments importance as suggested by Frederik today was also raised at that discussion but nothing was made since then.<br>
<br>Pieren<br>