[OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 18 lug 2016, alle ore 00:01, tuxayo <victor at tuxayo.net> ha scritto:
> 
> If the edit was discussed and approved, then if after the fact, damage
> that was considered acceptable is discovered. Or damage that doesn't
> question the validity of the whole changeset (risk of many more damage
> unnoticed).


the fact that you discover some damage after the automatic edit, automatically leads to the assumption that there might be more of it which you simply haven't yet discovered.

Now the problem with reverts is that they become more difficult the longer you wait. Often the people cleaning up the "clean-up" are not the same people that have done the initial cleaning, and considering that everybody is working on a volunteer basis, but that only the people doing the first clean-up are working in a field they have chosen (while the DWG is "forced" to look at the problems others have introduced in a field they have chosen), it seems reasonable to bias the decision pro revert (I am not saying that every damage>0 should lead to automatic revert, fixing the detected damage can also be an option).


cheers,
Martin