[OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits

[Andrew Guertin]

I've just read through http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy 
and this thread, and here's my thoughts on the matter.

It is possible to improve OSM using only the data already within 
OSM--with no external knowledge, survey, or other data sources. Typo 
fixing and other similar activities do provide benefit.


When you make an edit using no external knowledge, you must always 
discuss it first. In my opinion, not doing so--even for an edit that 
turns out to be correct!--is a detriment to the community, because it is 
both risky and antisocial.

I don't however agree with the policy's requirement of specific forms of 
discussion. I think that the discussion required should be proportional 
to the change being made. For example, if you notice that three 
instances of "amenity=restuarant" were added this week, I think an 
appropriate form of discussion would be to hop on IRC, say you're fixing 
them, wait until someone says "yay" or 2 minutes has passed, and do it. 
But as the risk goes up--either lower certainty or higher impact--the 
required discussion should too, from IRC to a quick note on a mailing 
list to long mailing list threads with wiki documentation and detailed 
notes about methods and tools.


Similarly, in minor cases I don't agree with the policy's requirement 
for documentation. If someone wants to merge the 10 copies of 
"amenity=watering place" into the 1647 copies of 
"amenity=watering_place", I don't think there will be any negative 
impacts on consumers. But if consumers will be affected then 
documentation should be a requirement. I think there should be 
guidelines for how to document, and the community should decide (in the 
required discussion!) which steps of the guidelines should be followed 
in a specific case.


The existing requirements for execution look good to me.


When someone doesn't follow the policy, what should be done? In my 
opinion, everyone SHOULD follow the policy, but if they don't the 
community should be lenient, either doing nothing or giving gentle 
reminders that the policy exists--until the person causes a problem with 
their edits. At that point, the community should start holding the 
person to a higher standard and insisting they follow the policy. If 
someone who has caused problems before continues to not follow the 
policy, then the community should bring the issue to the DWG.

That's my thougts,
--Andrew