<html><body><div><br><br>On Sep 25, 2012, at 01:00 PM, THEVENON Julien <julien_thevenon@yahoo.fr> wrote:<br><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="msg-quote"><div class="_stretch"> ><br> >The need to keep these conditions open-ended is a weakness that lets<br> >detractors claim that they are arbitrary, but I'm guessing that this is<br> >necessary to prevent users gaming the rules with stupid technical<br> >loopholes... Not quite transparent but practical.<br> ><br> >This proposal hits all the goals I have seen stated so far... Or are<br> >there others that are not satisfied by this proposal ?<br> ><br> >On the French list, some contributors are complaining that the<br> >changeset-level tagging makes the separate account requirement entirely<br> >obsolete. Technically, I believe they are right... But I hope they'll<br> >see that this proposal could be a fair meeting ground for an opportunity<br> >to improve the import process with better metadata and make it more<br> >flexible where necessary while not messing too much with the current<br> >international consensus<br> <br> hi,<br> <br> The proposal of changeset tags seems also good for me but I consider that the arbitrary criteria of node number is a weakness that fall in the trap of "stupid technical loopholes" mentionnedby Jean Marc.<br> it will be quite easy to split changesets to stay under the limit and avoid the use of a separated account. geographical area limitation (by example country scale) could also be hacked by splitting. that's why I personnally think that purely automatic script without manual refinement are better criteria to justify the use of a dedicated account unless there are some other reasons I'm not aware of that make the only use of tags unsufficiant<br> </div></div></blockquote><span> </span></div><div><span>I believe RichardF is talking about over 20k objects total, not per changeset. Going much over about 25k per changeset is a bad practice for other reasons.</span></div></body></html>