[OSM-dev] Harmless edits
Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
ldeffenb at homeside.to
Fri Dec 16 18:09:04 GMT 2011
My opinion is that the agree-er's change of the (apparently, but who
knows for sure?) mis-spelling of the nmae= tag to name= brings the
information into the realm of agreement by the adoption of the most
recent edit of the tag. It is the responsibility, I would think, of the
correcting user to ensure the validity of the change and is no different
than an agree-er entering their own name= tag based on what some
non-agree-ing person told them about the object.
The disappearance of the nmae= tag makes the original addition a
harmless edit. The edit is no longer present.
The appearance of a name= tag must be, IMHO, considered acceptable if
done by an agree-ing user. There is no way nor reason to infer that it
was simply a correction of a spelling error without also assuming that
the responsibility and agreement status for the information has
transitioned to the most recent editor.
Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
(Watching the discussion from the side-lines)
On 12/16/2011 12:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 06:40 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
>> suggests "This object remains problematic even after looking at harmless
> Yes. The script is not clever enough to find out what you did. It
> would have classed the non-agreer's change as harmless if it had been
> in between two *identical* versions of the object (i.e. if a full
> revert had taken place later). In your case, with the "history" and
> "created_by" coming into play, this was not the case and so the change
> was considered not harmless.
> I'll have to look into how I could improve this.
> The obvious choice would be: "if someone adds something and whatever
> they added is not present in the current version any more, then that
> edit was harmless".
> However: What if the non-agreer adds the tag
> nmae=Aunt Gertrud's Home for Orphans
> and an agreer later fixes this to
> name=Aunt Gertrud's Home for Orphans
> ... the simple analysis sketched above would say "clearly the
> non-agreer's change is harmless because the nmae tag is not present
> any more". But in this situation that would be wrong (I think).
> So while in your case the "harmlessness" is obvious to the human eye,
> I struggle to find a good algorithm that captures it. Any ideas?
More information about the dev