<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/07/2016 16:19, Éric Gillet wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPr1vj9EKeMSakznt5kCMCA=kDFF8W5pRJKn71QDehbw4GUxZA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">So if the changeset correct 300
restaurants but 2 are "damaged" by the automated edit, would
the edit be bad enough to be reverted or not be done in the
first place ?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd revert it. It's essentially the same as the "trees" example
upthread (where the mechanical editor thought incorrectly that
deciduous implied broadleaved, and vice versa). It's easy for
people processing OSM data to say "obviously these are mistaggings;
I'll assume that people have just got it wrong". However, going to
Burkina Faso (in the Mac Donald example) is inherantly much harder;
we need to respect someone who's actually been there.<br>
<br>
Where there a small number of potential mistaggings the correct
approach would be to _ask the previous mapper_ or if that doesn't
work _ask someone else in the area_. OSM provides tools that makes
it really easy to do exactly that.<br>
<br>
You might argue "but surely if more data is corrected than damaged
the overall quality is improved?" but you'd be wrong. It's
important to leave as much original data there as possible for
downstream processing. I spent a good few years in the 80s and 90s
arguing the superiority of statistical approaches to data
interpretation over rule-based ones. To cut a long story short,
there's a reason why e.g. the anti-spam measures used with email
today are Bayesian (statistical) - it works. Don't second-guess
what data consumers might need if you've not been one. <br>
<br>
That doesn't mean that if you see that someone has mapped an obvious
primary highway as "highway=pirmary" that you shouldn't change it -
but do always ask yourself if by "tidying up" you're actually
removing information from OSM, even if that information is "there is
some doubt as to whether the original mapper knew what they were
doing".<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>