[OSM-talk] A plea for meaning ful changeset comments

[Ed Avis]

John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 <at> gmail.com> writes:

>>If another mapper has a question about your changes and they have to contact
>>you and you need to reply, that uses a lot more time than a quick explanation
>>attached to the change when it was uploaded.
> 
>I can count using my fingers and toes the number of times I've been
>emailed about a changeset, and most of them weren't even questioning
>what or why I did what I did, but simply complaining about the
>changeset comment,

I guess, in that case, they might have been curious about your changes and went
to see more about what you were doing and why - and asked you to put in a comment
to help in future.

Even if you disagree about the value of comments; even if you never feel
the need to review other mappers' changes or offer advice, it might be a good
idea to humour these people and add a short note.  In future, they might help
you by spotting a mistake you made or making useful suggestions.  It's good to
have these extra people reviewing your work, even if they are an annoyance
at first.

>it took far less time than if I'd set hundreds if
>not thousands of changeset comments accurately reflecting what I was
>doing, and that's assuming I didn't make any mistakes that may have
>mislead people about the changes I'd made.

Agreed.  I think the comment should say 'why' not 'what', and if the change is
derived from something other than ground survey, cite the source used.  It
shouldn't take more than a few seconds.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>