[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Wed Jun 6 08:22:43 BST 2012


On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:
>  On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
>>  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?
>
>  This nearly describes what the redaction bot will do, once it is
>  complete.

NE2 then wrote:

With one big difference: the bot will not undelete objects that an
ungood mapper deleted. (So any joining of ways by such a mapper will be
handled improperly.)

SteveA here:

NE2, I'm actually glad that you have identified this problem. 
"Handled improperly" is a syntactically clean way of identifying this 
abstract box of cases.  But then there is "what to do."  Will the 
redaction bot simply "punt" in these cases?  Is that OK?  Likely not, 
as we then have "handled improperly" as a result for any subsequent 
"joining of ways."  What about in the meantime, before ways are 
joined?

Am I / are we talking about these problems in the right forum and in 
the right way?

Thanks,

SteveA
California



More information about the Talk-us mailing list