[Talk-us] Optimal / preferred checkin sizes

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Thu Apr 21 00:35:09 UTC 2016

"Steve Friedl" <steve at unixwiz.net> writes:

> I don't think that 3 square miles of road straightening ought to go in a
> single [enormous] batch, but I'm not sure that 100 entries of the form
> 'Straightened Main Street in MyTown" / "Straightened Elm Street in MyTown" /
> "Straightened Euclid Steet in MyTown" is really adding any value.
> How does one decide how best to check stuff in?

I think it's much like software: a group of related changes that are
doing the same kind of thing is fine.   Think about how others with
changeset-watching tools will decide to look at or not look at your
changeset.  That's easier said than really described of course.

For me, the biggest thing is to keep the geographic extent limited.  A
few square miles is still mostly the same place, but changing things 50
miles or hundreds of miles apart should be separate, to keep the extra
bounding box area with no changes smallish.

Changesets being pretty big geographically is fine if the change is
well-described by the changeset comment and especially if it is
uncontroversial.  To be, uncontroversial means that if 100 experienced
mappers who sort of knew the area looked at it, 95 would say you did
everything basically right enough that nobody should be paying
attention.  The more it strays from uncontroversial the better it is for
a changeset to have more singularity of purpose.

As an example, I sometimes end up adding a few stores here in there in
several town centers, spanning 10 miles - which is still close by my
local area's standards.  In this case, I'm adding store that are there
and taking out ones that are gone, and using established tags, so nobody
would object, and I don't worry.

I might be doing retagging of cell towers (that's in en_US; in en_GB I
mean mobile phone masts) soonish, changing man_made=tower to
man_made=mast.   That's perhaps slightly controversial (alhhough
following consensus on talk@ and tagging@), so I'd limit that changeset
to just that kind of change, even though it will cover a biggish area.

So I think your example of 3 square miles of fixing road geometry is
fine.  I would just avoid adjusting tags in the same changeset, and make
the comment clear that it's about straightening roads.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160420/9ee312e2/attachment.sig>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list