<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 24/10/2017 18:07, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJGfNe9=xdV7UQAZ8Jim5qtrqgZ4RqFwxkkzsOTdd+jz_Qt=uQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:19 AM,
Tomas Straupis <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:tomasstraupis@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">tomasstraupis@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">2017-10-24
15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:<br>
> Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia
links in OSM point to<br>
> disambiguation page instead of link Hillfort 1 in
OSM to Hillfort 1 in<br>
> Wikipedia, link Hillfort 2 accordingly and fix
Wikipedia doubts in<br>
> Wikipedia?<br>
<br>
</span> So that the case is not forgotten and fixed
properly (i.e. ALL tags<br>
fixed) by people who know how to do it, not by those who
are doing<br>
guesswork and just silencing the "qa" script. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
But in general all automated guess-edits are reverted
for the time<br>
being because it was clearly stated they are unhelpful and
so<br>
unwanted.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tomas, I do agree that there should not be an automatic
script setting tags based on a heuristic. But what you are
saying is very strange if I understood you correctly.
What I read here is that the only people allowed to fix
things are those that know ALL tags and their meaning.
This goes counter to the common sense (nobody knows all
65000+ tags), and counter to the existing warnings, such
as JOSM's validator "when in doubt, ignore them". You can
never have a person who knows everything about both - the
place and OSM tags.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are two axis of editing: local knowledge and OSM
knowledge. They are orthogonal - I could be a tagging
expert, but not know the area, or a novice editor with the
expert local knowledge. Additionally, "local knowledge"
very rapidly decays as you move away from where you live -
another street, neighborhood, city, state, country,
continent. If I see a problem, I can reasonably research
the topic, gain knowledge, and fix the problems in my area
of expertise. Of course someone who lives in the
incorrectly tagged building, and happens to be an expert
OSM editor would be ideal, but sorry, no such luck.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In most cases, the editors who decide to help will make
data better. It might not be perfect, but it is better
than before. When you say you will revert things despite
making data worse, just because you disagree with HOW the
problem was found, and not on the basis of decreasing data
quality, you go against the very idea of a common sense.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is only one reasonable approach to editing - data
should be in a better shape after you than before. More
accurate. More complete. Please don't make assumptions
that the data has gotten worse just because you disagree
that there should be a qa script - after all, you are
using them yourself, and no one is reverting all your work
based on that.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
+1<br>
</body>
</html>