[openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website] Designate regions where new accounts cannot edit or add notes (Issue #6512)

[Andy Allan]

gravitystorm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#6512)

> In conversation with the DWG, an idea came up of using existing boundary relations. That would be really handy but I suspect we don't have a good way to determine if a point is within a boundary (perhaps another reason to add PostGIS after all?).

Indeed. Determining the area covered by a boundary relation is much harder (e.g. super relations, multipolygon areas etc) and would just involve converting the chosen relation to a polygon anyway. However, the UI for picking boundaries would be easier for moderators than drawing polygons by hand. But even after a boundary relation is chosen, we'd probably want to store it in the polygon form, since the edit war might be involve deleting the relation or changing its boundaries.

> In some cases moderators would need to create multiple circles, but the UI could be made to define several circles as part of a single "block" which might hit a right balance of complexity vs utility.

If the UI involves creating multiple circles, we might still want to store the intersection of those circles? Although...

> a circle might be the simplest solution that gets us going with something useful.

>From the UI, perhaps, and it's marginally simpler from a computational science point of view since it's the equivalent of [ST_Distance](https://postgis.net/docs/ST_Distance.html) / [ST_DWithin](https://postgis.net/docs/ST_DWithin.html). We already have this (sort of) working for nearby users. But since we'd probably want to use the postgis functions rather than doing our own, then [ST_Intersects](https://postgis.net/docs/ST_Intersects.html) would available too and we're back to storing polygons.

> plus an unrelated change 3000km away, thus triggering this edge case.

I meant more that two innocent changes might get blocked, because the innocent changeset overlaps with the blocked region. I don't think this would work in reverse, i.e. if a malicious changeset includes innocent changes elsewhere, the bounding box will still overlap with the blocked region.

> * A reasonable definition for "new" user could be "fewer than 7 mapping days".

We should align this with "days_for_max_changes" which is implemented for rate limiting new users. It's a similar concept.

> * Comments should not be blocked by default.

We have multiple types of comments - NoteComment, DiaryComment, ChangesetComment etc. It's worth being clear which one(s) is/are being referred to here - all three parent models (Note, DiaryEntry and Changeset) have coordinate information and so could be in scope for block regions.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/6512#issuecomment-3563482490
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/6512/3563482490 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rails-dev/attachments/20251121/799e5487/attachment.htm>