[Talk-us] Am I wrong to be bothered by this?
frederik at remote.org
Thu Jan 5 22:28:25 UTC 2017
On 01/05/2017 09:26 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> I monitor a number of places I’ve done mapping in and suspect I’ll be back to in the future. Today I noticed a change set that covers nearly all of California and Nevada . It looks like this same mapper has even done some changes that span continents .
> I guess I prefer geographically compact change sets: It makes me feel that all the changes have actually been looked at. And, at least with how I use the OSM tools I know about, I can quickly take a look and see if I agree or not. In this case, I’ve found a few of the actual ways changed in my area of interest  and wonder why the street name was dropped from the way. I guess I need to dig through all the changed ways now and it would just be easier if the change set did not cover so large an area most of which I have no way of doing a site survey to verify.
> Am I out of line to be annoyed when I see a change set like this one?
Well maybe annoyance is too intense as a first reaction. We have rules
about automatic/mechanical edits that say that any edit where the person
making the edit doesn't actually look at the concrete object they're
editing needs to be discussed and approved in advance.
So "I'll find all mini roundabouts in California, look them up on Bing
imagery, and remove them if what I see isn't a mini roundabout" is ok to
do just like that, but "I'll find all mini roundabouts in California and
remove them whoesale because there can't legally be any" is something
that would require prior discussion which obviously hasn't happened in
But it's quite possible that the user in question didn't know that so
the best thing is to make contact via a changeset discussion and find
out what happened and what the user was doing/thinking. If necessary,
the edit can then be reverted.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the Talk-us