<html><head></head><body><p dir="ltr">I would suggest simply adapting my old suggestion (for imports) that as long as you fix the same number of elements from a broken import you can bot edit/import to your hearts desire.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Totally serious :-)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Simon</p>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2. Oktober 2017 16:58:02 MESZ, Christoph Hormann <osm@imagico.de> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Monday 02 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><br /> yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in<br /> the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the<br /> planet file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to<br /> externalize the bot-tags. But how would you link one db to the other?<br /> If people don't see those tags (or only by request), their edits will<br /> erode the information in this external db (e.g. by splitting ways,<br /> deleting and redrawing parts, combining ways, etc.). What about<br /> versions, will there be different versions of the same object in the<br /> main db and this bot db? Is this a serious suggestion or just another<br /> way of saying there are too many automated activities going on?<br /></blockquote><br />It is a serious idea although i don't s!
eriously
expect this to be <br />implemented any time soon. Less for technical reasons as you mentioned <br />but for social reasons. A huge part of the interest in making bot <br />edits stems from the idea to have the OSM community as cheap labour to <br />clean up after the bots and if you remove that incentive a lot of <br />motivation for making bot edits vanishes.<br /><br />Linking a separate bot editing database to the main OSM database is not <br />that difficult in principle as long as we are only talking about tag <br />modifications on the bot side. You would simply have a separate and <br />separately versioned 'bot tags' object for every object that has bot <br />tags. Of course if bots should also be able to make geometry edits you <br />would need rules for that - like bots may only edit geometries that <br />have no tag starting with something other than 'bot:' and that are not <br />member of a way or relation with tags other than 'bot:*'. This would <br />then
essentially mean any geometry edits by bots stay within the bot <br />database which would make things easier (you would have a 'bot tags' <br />table plus supplemental bot only geometries tables).<br /><br />That is of course all theoretical. The more likely scenarios what will <br />happen if bot editing activities spread even further are probably<br /><br />a) That more and more craft mappers get fed up with bots messing with <br />their work and manual editing activity declines overall -> OSM transits <br />into a primarily bot maintained database.<br />b) The craft mappers get fed up with the bots and decide to separate out <br />their work instead of that of the bots in form of some protection <br />(could be as simple as adding a 'bot=no' tag to features allowing <br />mappers to indicate 'bots may not touch this object i have just <br />mapped').<br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.</body></html>