[OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Andy Townsend ajt1047 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 14 12:32:37 UTC 2016

On 14/07/2016 13:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> √Čric Gillet wrote:
>> That would be slightly faster to execute than the first approach I was
>> suggesting, but then how would you prove that you checked every
>> and all features ?
> Well, the best way to prove that you checked everything is not to fuck
> things up, which of course you won't, because you've checked everything.

My first changeset discussion comment on suspicious edits is often 
"you've changed X to Y, but to me it looks like a Z; are you sure?" for 
exactly that reason.  If I can pick somewhere that I'm familiar with as 
an example, I'll use that.  If someone doesn't answer the question and 
instead replies "But the wiki says ..." then clearly we've got a problem.

> If you fuck things up (for example, by changing name=McDonalds to
> name=McDonald's on an independent restaurant that is actually called
> McDonalds), then by definition you haven't checked sufficiently, have you?

... at least one example of which is "Mac Donald" in Banfora, Burkina Faso:



Best Regards,


More information about the talk mailing list