[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

[the Old Topo Depot]

Given the earlier statements regarding alignment, etc, of the road vectors,
and the seemingly large amount of work to revert these changes, perhaps an
incremental replacement of road geometry with TIGER 2011 data along with
manual conflation of existing attributes is a more effective application of
effort.  This assumes, of course, the TIGER data (which I have not examined
for LA County) is markedly superior to the existing data.

Best,

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Charlotte Wolter <techlady at techlady.com>wrote:

>  Steve,
>
> **        **Thanks for your thoughts, and I hope others in the community
> will share their views. My view would be that it should be OK to do such a
> reverse if the person has not signed the new license, particularly when
> there has been such an enormous number of questionable edits.
> **        **If it is decided to do reversals, I suggest we start with his
> most recent changesets and work backward, little by little. Though most of
> his "edits" follow a definite pattern, a few appear to be unique, genuine
> edits much like the work we all do. I'll bet the most recent work is what
> was done robotically.
> **        **Also, to give a little more information, many of the "edits"
> often show up as intersections that must be deleted and redrawn. This is a
> particularly time-consuming process, as, I believe, "blars" knew.
>
> Charlotte
>
>
>
> At 11:56 AM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
>
> **         **I have been working on the LA remap, which mostly involves
> correcting thousands and thousands of edits by a user named "blars."
> **        **The odd thing about the "edits" that "blars" did is that they
> seem to have been done almost robotically. Although many intersections have
> been changed enough to be marked "modified" by the OSM Inspector, it's
> difficul to see what, if anything, was done. The poor street alignments
> from TIGER have not been corrected. Obvious issues, such as a street that
> no longer exists, have been ignored. Almost every single dead-end street or
> those with turning circles are "modified," as are many intersections, but,
> again, bad alignment has not been touched.
> **        **All this plus the sheer volume of changes makes me think that
> "blars" used some kind of bot to make these changes. These "edits"
> corrected or added little, except to make the map "modified" for the new
> license.
> **        **Perhaps someone who knows JOSM or other tools better than I
> do could come up with a way to make these repairs on a mass basis. Or,
> perhaps, there is a wasy to reverse just what blars did within a certain
> time frame.
> **        **I appreciate any help you can give. I've put in hundreds of
> hours on this and barely scratched the surface.
>
>
> Hello Charlotte:
>
> I have been watching the fine efforts in greater LA, with impressive
> progress and results (in a "slow and steady" way), so I first wanted to
> congratulate you on your efforts, and especially reaching out to this talk
> group.  You have done much more than scratch the surface, you (and others)
> are making real progress.
>
> One method may be to revert changesets by blars.  Reverting changesets can
> be controversial (it is polite to ask / reach consensus with the original
> author, et cetera).  However, in the case of an editor who has not agreed
> to the new CT, it may be correct for OSM users who HAVE agreed to the new
> CT to establish if/when/how this is an OK/proper thing to do.  And then
> feel OK doing it, and then do it.
>
> Technically, reverting a changeset is rather easily done with a JOSM
> plug-in, which you can read about on OSM's wiki.  There is the separate
> issue of IDENTIFYING which changeset to revert, which can be "more
> difficult" and then there is the rather straightforward procedure for doing
> it, which isn't difficult.
>
> But "socially," or more properly stated, in the context of "reaching OSM
> consensus," what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts of
> a contributor who has not agreed to the CT?  Are we OK with that?
> Apologies if this is already clearly stated somewhere. But if so, I haven't
> seen it and it is high time we freshen up how/where we are about this.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> **
>
> ** Charlotte Wolter
>
> 927 18th Street Suite A
> Santa Monica, California
> 90403
> +1-310-597-4040
> techlady at techlady.com
> Skype: thetechlady
>
> *The Four Internet Freedoms*
> Freedom to visit any site on the Internet
> Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal
> Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network
> Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that would
> affect the first three freedoms.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
John Novak
Novacell Technologies and the Old Topo Depot
http://www.novacell.com
585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20120605/c380e134/attachment-0001.html>