<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>I am fine with that. More realistic stuff would be more functional.<br>To be constructive here (for a change for me) here some more thoughts.<br><br>I would even break it down to levels of what you are doing.<br>Here are a few example I have done before with suggested <br><br>Typo (a few characters difference)<br>e.g. religion=Budist to religion=buddist<br>Updating 1 tag value up to 10 occurrences. Simple IRC wait 2 minute or yes.<br>Updating 1 tag value up to 100 occurrences. IRC chat wait 10 minutes or 2 yes.<br>Updating 1 tag value above 100 occurrences. Mailing list chat.<br><br>Changing the word/meaning of a tag to correct common usage.<br>e.g. amenity=takeaway to amenity=fast_food<br>Updating 1 tag value up to 10 occurrences. Simple IRC wait 10 minute or 2 yes.<br>Updating 1 tag value up to 100 occurrences. IRC chat wait 30 minutes or 3 yes.<br>Updating 1 tag value above 100 occurrences. Mailing list chat.<br><br>Implying tag types <br>e.g. denomination = roman_catholic and religion is null --> religion=christian<br>etc, etc,<br><br>Additionally I would say putting more meaning information into the change sets comments.<br><br>For example a changeset comment like.<br><br>"Correcting "amenity=watering place" -> "amenity=watering_place" typo."<br>rather than nothing or just "typos" or "watering place" or something.<br>So
it is clearer to all that view the changesets what you are doing at a
glance and reverts can be easier on the rare cases that it apply. And is a form of documentation.<br><br>I would even be up for a separate account to doing many larger changes say.<br><br>I happily write a wiki article on this if there was a desire from the community.<br><br><div>> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:47:55 -0400<br>> From: andrew.guertin@uvm.edu<br>> To: talk@openstreetmap.org<br>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits<br>> <br>> I've just read through http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy <br>> and this thread, and here's my thoughts on the matter.<br>> <br>> It is possible to improve OSM using only the data already within <br>> OSM--with no external knowledge, survey, or other data sources. Typo <br>> fixing and other similar activities do provide benefit.<br>> <br>> <br>> When you make an edit using no external knowledge, you must always <br>> discuss it first. In my opinion, not doing so--even for an edit that <br>> turns out to be correct!--is a detriment to the community, because it is <br>> both risky and antisocial.<br>> <br>> I don't however agree with the policy's requirement of specific forms of <br>> discussion. I think that the discussion required should be proportional <br>> to the change being made. For example, if you notice that three <br>> instances of "amenity=restuarant" were added this week, I think an <br>> appropriate form of discussion would be to hop on IRC, say you're fixing <br>> them, wait until someone says "yay" or 2 minutes has passed, and do it. <br>> But as the risk goes up--either lower certainty or higher impact--the <br>> required discussion should too, from IRC to a quick note on a mailing <br>> list to long mailing list threads with wiki documentation and detailed <br>> notes about methods and tools.<br>> <br>> <br>> Similarly, in minor cases I don't agree with the policy's requirement <br>> for documentation. If someone wants to merge the 10 copies of <br>> "amenity=watering place" into the 1647 copies of <br>> "amenity=watering_place", I don't think there will be any negative <br>> impacts on consumers. But if consumers will be affected then <br>> documentation should be a requirement. I think there should be <br>> guidelines for how to document, and the community should decide (in the <br>> required discussion!) which steps of the guidelines should be followed <br>> in a specific case.<br>> <br>> <br>> The existing requirements for execution look good to me.<br>> <br>> <br>> When someone doesn't follow the policy, what should be done? In my <br>> opinion, everyone SHOULD follow the policy, but if they don't the <br>> community should be lenient, either doing nothing or giving gentle <br>> reminders that the policy exists--until the person causes a problem with <br>> their edits. At that point, the community should start holding the <br>> person to a higher standard and insisting they follow the policy. If <br>> someone who has caused problems before continues to not follow the <br>> policy, then the community should bring the issue to the DWG.<br>> <br>> That's my thougts,<br>> --Andrew<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> talk mailing list<br>> talk@openstreetmap.org<br>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk<br></div> </div></body>
</html>