[Talk-GB] Edits being made by a National Trust GIS team member

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/02/2023 18:37, Charlie Reid wrote:
> My main problem with edits in Co Down is the use of a standard text 
> instead of a proper edit explanation.
>
I'm guessing that that text was just one that they were told to use by 
someone in the organisation.  In the case of your Co Down mapper, 
someone's already had that conversation with them on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132532620 .  That's generally 
the way to go - a nice friendly message first.  To be fair, the original 
post in this thread was after receiving no reply from a changeset 
comment, but I see that that person has now replied at least once too*.


Like all new mappers, people from an organisation such as the NT will 
make mistakes, and may need help or advice when things go wrong.  I 
commented on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132301556 where 
there had been a relation / superrelation faux pas, but I challenge 
anyone in OSM to explain relations generally to someone familiar with 
real-world concepts of "public footpaths and signed national trails" in 
5 minutes without getting a lot of blank looks!  The response there (an 
offer to double-check a coastal-erosion-forced path move PRoW status 
with the council) was far more than I had an right to expect**.


Best Regards,


Andy


* I think saying things like "hello" and "Any questions, please don't 
hesitate to ask" is more likely to get a response than sounding like a 
compiler error message (which some changeset comments do, unfortunately).


** This, incidentally, led an IRC discussion to 
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/5720631224041472 and 
potential loss of cycling rights at 4.10.15 in there.  It's not relevant 
in this example, but is an interesting read.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20230219/0e0adc97/attachment.htm>