[OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Christoph Hormann chris_hormann at gmx.de
Mon Jul 11 08:36:28 UTC 2016

Another thought: maybe it would be helpful to think of the DWG work as 
some kind of fire brigade rather than police.  They do not work to 
enforce formal laws but are around in case something disruptive to 
normal mapping activities happens too severe for the individual mappers 
to deal with.  If during this work some unintended damage happens that 
is generally accepted.

In this light it might also be better to consider the Automated Edit 
rules as documentation of the de facto consensus on the line between 
normal uncritical edits and problematic ones that mappers frequently 
find disruptive to their work and that have therefore - based on past 
experience - been found to be required to follow a special procedure.

And Frederiks recent edit of the page with those rules in my eyes does 
not change the rules, it just documents a fact that is probably obvious 
to anyone who has ever reverted a changeset before.  It does not move 
the actual line between normal edits and automated edits in any way.

If you think this line should be drawn differently i think this should 
be openly discussed (based on a specific suggestion of course - not 
just general dissatisfaction) but this would need to take into account 
the practical experience of the DWG of course.

There is another line by the way between normal edits and vandalism 
which is essentially defined through the Verifiability principle.  And 
just like with automated edits - if you find a user doing lots of bogus 
edits with a few correct ones mixed in between you can - no matter if 
you are a normal mapper or DWG - revert those changes in total (after 
trying to talk to the user of course).  There have been in the past a 
few cases where the ratio between factual and bogus edits approaches 
unity and where therefore there has been discussion how to deal with 
that.  But as far as i can see none of the changes mentioned in this 
thread can be considered borderline cases in that regard.

Christoph Hormann

More information about the talk mailing list