<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left">Mar 23, 2019, 6:17 PM by <a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch">simon@poole.ch</a>:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p><br></p><div class="">Am 23.03.2019 um 13:28 schrieb Mateusz
Konieczny:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px">Mar 23, 2019, 1:04 PM by <a class="" href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p><br></p><div class="">On 3/23/19 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px">Mar 23, 2019, 9:59 AM by <a class="" href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>... Producing false updates (aka no real content) just
obscures that fact and makes it more difficult to
determine which areas need to be revisted.<br></p></blockquote><div style="16px">It seems to me as not a real problem. There
are many, many different indicators of such places<br></div><div style="16px">and automatic edits are suitable to remove
only very small part of them.<br></div><div style="16px"><br></div></blockquote><p>It's a real problem, for a couple of reasons - one is that
"this object might be out of date" warnings in e.g. Vespucci
won't trigger<br></p></blockquote><div style="16px">Is it really a problem? It is
only heuristic and there was no place where I ever mapped that<br></div><div style="16px">I had problem because I run
out of obvious indicators that something needs to be fixed,
resurveyed<br></div><div style="16px">or remapped.<br></div></blockquote><p>Time since last edit is the only -non- heuristic measure of
staleness in OSM. There are other ways to determine this, but they
are are an order of magnitude more involved (essentially you need
to retrieve prior versions and start comparing tags and
geometries). And I wasn't even thinking specifically of Vespucci
in this case (in principle for Vespucci it could be worked around
by setting a fake survey_date in a mass edit).<br></p></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left"><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px">It is still heuristic. It is unable to distinguish between "it was all mapped 2 days ago" and<br></div><div style="16px">"someone reverted vandalism two days ago" or "offset in area mapped from Bing was adjusted<br></div><div style="16px">to known correct one".<br></div><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">And anyway, any area that I encountered had more objects reported as worth resurveying than it<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">was feasible to resurvey.<br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>And to repeat, I'm not against removing tags when they are
really an issue. For example last year we removed note tags from
the locations of the major car sharing operation in Switzerland,
roughly a 1'000 objects, because they indicated that the objects
shouldn't be edited (originally they were imported), <br></p></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I fully agree here.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">but there is
no need to do so just for superficial aesthetic reasons, just as
other normalisation for the sake of normalisation is contra
productive in an OSM context.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">That is probably root of our disagreement.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I consider edit changing<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">area=yes<br>massgis:IT_VALC=WS3<br>massgis:IT_VALDESC=WOODED SWAMP MIXED TREES<br>massgis:OBJECTID=62053<br>massgis:PALIS_ID=0<br>massgis:POLY_CODE=3<br>massgis:SOURCE=DEP-WCP<br>massgis:SOURCE_SCA=12000<br>massgis:WETCODE=16<br>natural=wetland<br>source=DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) - April 2007 (<a href="http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm">http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm</a>)<br>wetland=swamp</div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><div style="16px" text-align="left">natural=wetland<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">massgis:OBJECTID=62053<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">massgis:IT_VALDESC=WOODED SWAMP MIXED TREES<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">source=DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) - April 2007 (<a href="http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm">http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm</a>)<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">wetland=swamp<br></div><div style="16px"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">as valuable, helpful and useful cleanup of a bungled import<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">(massgis:OBJECTID, massgis:IT_VALDESC may be also worth removing <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">but I would not do it blindly).<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Or changing FIXME=whatever to fixme=whatever.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="16px">I opened <a href="https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17512" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17512</a> (if it will pass I will open equivalents<br></div><div style="16px">for iD and Vespucci).<br></div><div style="16px"><br></div></blockquote><p>You don't need to do anything separate for Vespucci, simply make
a PR against <a class="" href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json</a><br></p></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Yes, I planned to open PR (like I did with iD in <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/6091">https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/6091</a> )<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">and I had already bookmarked that file.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">If adding tags to list of discardable tags is preferred over mechanical edits I will start doing this,<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">main goal of reducing pollution in lists of displayed tags is also achieved this way.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I thought that mechanical edits would be preferable as it allows people to use this tag<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">(mechanical edit will not block future additions, one can op-out from it etc) while<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">discardable tags are much stronger effect.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">But if for some reasons (even if I disagree with them) using discardable tags is preferred <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I will happily use it.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Opening issue for JOSM and making trivial PRs for Vespucci and iD is much, much easier<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">than running a mechanical edit and prevents people from adding tag in future, so I will switch<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">to this method for future proposals to eliminate utterly pointless tags.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div> </body>
</html>