[talk-au] Wide-ranging changeset that merges tags from addresses, shops and buildings

[Warin]

On 15/5/21 9:54 am, Stéphane Guillou wrote:
>
> Thanks Warin and Graeme. I had also sent a private message, and no 
> response either.
>
> I went ahead and did my first revert with the JOSM plugin, which is 
> some fun mental gymnastics... Only 7 conflicts, thankfully. Revert 
> changeset is this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104711700
>
> So out of the 7 changesets, 2 have been reverted:
>
>   * Geraldton landuse <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103072911>
>   * Land usage <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103073501>
>   * Fixes around Corsico
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103074145>
>
I took a look at this one, made some changes and asked a local to look 
at it. So I think you  can skip it.
>
>   * المحطة البخارية للكهرباء
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103074175>
>       o reverted by Warin61
>         <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103074175>
>
Yer .. this one... umm the original mapping is not good either. But 
better to leave it for someone to clean up that knows it.  The sand 
scrip says something like "steam powered electricity" - tagging for the 
render.
>
>      o
>
>
>   * agro industrial plants; house numbers merged
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103074912>
>       o reverted by stragu
>         <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104711700>
>   * Venezuela cleanup and additions
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103076310>
>   * try to fix this area
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103076460>
>
> I don't have time to review (and revert if need be) the other ones 
> this weekend, unfortunately, but might have a look next week.
>
It is not all that urgent, most of the changesets are a small amount of 
data. The main concern is the combining of features into one OSM item.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 14/5/21 8:00 pm, Warin wrote:
>> Well no response 9 days later.
>> Wait another ~5 days, to make it a fortnight .... if nothing then 
>> revert all of them?
>>
>> On 5/5/21 12:15 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> I agree with the concerns you raised in the changeset comment, and 
>>> that the changesets are well-meaning, so let's see if and how they 
>>> respond first. There are only a handful of changesets all from 18 
>>> days ago at this point.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 11:12, Stéphane Guillou 
>>> <stephane.guillou at member.fsf.org 
>>> <mailto:stephane.guillou at member.fsf.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi all
>>>
>>>     I am /respectfully /writing to hear what you think about this
>>>     changeset from a seemingly new contributor. I definitely don't
>>>     want to publicly shame someone's well-meaning contribution, but
>>>     after commenting on the changeset, I want to:
>>>
>>>       * Inform others that the area they contribute to might have
>>>         been affected too
>>>       * Know what other contributors think about the nature of the
>>>         changes, given that I have very little experience with
>>>         fixing / reverting changes that affect such large areas.
>>>
>>>     You will notice from the changeset history of the contibutor
>>>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Australets/history> that all
>>>     their changesets were submitted on one single day, the day they
>>>     created their OSM account, and that they affect very distant
>>>     areas around the world (which makes me think there isn't much
>>>     local knowledge involved).
>>>
>>>     The changeset that affects the area I am familiar with is
>>>     changeset 103074912
>>>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103074912>. But if you
>>>     live around Geraldton (WA), you might also be interested in this
>>>     one: 103072911 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103072911>.
>>>
>>>     Here is the message I wrote after I noticed the changes in my
>>>     area, so you have a better idea of my concerns, but given the
>>>     size of the changeset, I haven't been able to give it a thorough
>>>     review.
>>>
>>>     ---
>>>
>>>     Hi Australets! I was wondering about the motivation between this
>>>     changeset, as it changed quite a few things in the area where I
>>>     contribute.
>>>     What is the idea behind merging addresses, buildings and points
>>>     of interest? I know there are different opinions on the matter,
>>>     but I can see definite drawbacks in the merging you did, at
>>>     least in some cases. For example, some of the resulting
>>>     buildings end up having a "source" tag that used to refer to
>>>     only the address, but now seems to refer to the whole object.
>>>     See for example this one:
>>>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401769723/history
>>>     In other cases, the main building is apartments but now has the
>>>     name of one single shop included in it:
>>>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444096785/history
>>>     In many cases, one single key could have a different values for
>>>     a building and a point of interest, even though the general rule
>>>     "One feature, one OSM element" applies. (e.g. address, name,
>>>     contact, source...). Separate POIs are also helpful for shops to
>>>     more precisely show in the building where it is located.
>>>     Let me know what you think!
>>>
>>>     ---
>>>
>>>     Any input would be appreciated, especially tips about the way
>>>     forward!
>>>
>>>     Cheers
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Stéphane Guillou
>>>     http://stragu.gitlab.io/
>>>
>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210515/f42c1a87/attachment.htm>