[Talk-GB] User with long list of slow vandalism

[OpenStreetmap HADW]

On 23/09/13 14:08, Tom Chance wrote:> On 23 September 2013 12:27,
OpenStreetmap HADW <osmhadw at gmail.com
> <mailto:osmhadw at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     The edits seem to be seriously incompetent, rather than actually
>     bogus, or malicious.
>
>
> I'm not sure, they are strange edits. On the one hand there are some
> outlines of actual features, on the other hand there are
>
> * random nodes and ways not corresponding to anything in the aerial imagery
> * changesets with the same comment that doesn't correspond with the
> thing they have traced, like "This is a House"

Unfortunately, like subjects on many PC support forums, the average
 contributor doesn't seem to be able to make useful changeset comments.
Whilst they are not useful comments, I'm not sure they are any worse
than maybe the majority.

> * lots of features deleted, in a way that doesn't look like an accident

I only looked in detail at one.  The road appeared to be deleted in order
 to make way for the detailed but incomplete tracing of both edges of
the sidewalks.  Most of the ways that weren't buildings, or kerb edges,
could be interpreted either as fences, or an attempt to complete the
plot boundary, in a presentational way.  The one, way that couldn't
really match to anything visible in Bing was probably the edge of
a private drive.

I did wonder, given the way that one feature was clipped, and the
fact that they are in multiple locations, whether these were custom
maps, being made for people, but what would they use to render
them?  I did think about estate agents, but some claim to be NHS
sites. and I'm not sure why an estate agent would be interested in
detailed mapping of them.

Whilst I can easily see people clicking through JOSM validation
warnings, I always check the standard Mapnik rendering, so I don't
understand why they would have added so much detailed geometry,
but not noticed that it wasn't rendering.

Unfortunately, there is so much valid, detailed, geometry, that simply
reverting is probably not the right approach, so if they can't be made
to see the light, someone is going to have their time cut out tagging
the good bits and undoing the bad ones.

The example I looked at had been traced off Bing, but possibly with
a local survey. for details like drives.  The alignment error to Bing
was unmeasurable.

At least they haven't put in any probable copyright violations.

>
> Plus the user hasn't responded to messages.
>

I think they should be blocked, but I don't think there is sufficient
evidence of mens reus.

Incidentally, is there any easy way of rendering a before image of
a change?  The simple, online tools, just report deleted for
deletions and show the after image for changes.  That's not all
that useful when checking a questionable edit.

On 23 September 2013 14:08, Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
> On 23 September 2013 12:27, OpenStreetmap HADW <osmhadw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The edits seem to be seriously incompetent, rather than actually
>> bogus, or malicious.
>
>
> I'm not sure, they are strange edits. On the one hand there are some
> outlines of actual features, on the other hand there are
>
> * random nodes and ways not corresponding to anything in the aerial imagery
> * changesets with the same comment that doesn't correspond with the thing
> they have traced, like "This is a House"
> * lots of features deleted, in a way that doesn't look like an accident
>
> Plus the user hasn't responded to messages.
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
>
> --
> http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance