[OSM-talk] Responding to vandalism

Yves yvecai at gmail.com
Fri Mar 17 19:02:40 UTC 2017

Interesting, I didn't know such patrolling took place at a country scale in OSM. Have you revert/re-map stats? 

However with your point 1)you have an idea. 
How about a service rendering the area affected by an edit before 'commit'?
This preview could be the place for an additional warning about the the live DB. 

Le 17 mars 2017 16:50:53 GMT+01:00, Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com> a écrit :
>Let's get on the higher level first.
>There are two ways of doing it from the process perspective:
>The first one gives higher quality but also discourages edits and
>maybe even prohibits edits in areas with no/few "checkers".
>So obviously the way to go for OSM is option 2.
>Now here what has to be done is an appropriate testing mechanism.
>There are some functionality already done (like the one in Belgium),
>but the problem is that everybody sees ALL last changes, there is no
>way to SHARE the work of checking and you never know if somebody has
>already checked the changeset.
>What we are doing in Lithuania for the last 5 years or so is we have a
>patrolling mechanism similar to wikipedia. That is all changesets in
>the region (in our case in Lithuania) are filtered out and placed into
>"check list". If the editor is known good mapper - his/her edits are
>"approved" automatically. Otherwise somebody with a status of "known"
>mapper should approve it. But when the changeset is approved - it does
>not show up for other "approvers". This way we avoid double work. So
>in practice this allows us to review only "suspicious" changes and in
>5 year of experience this worked out perfectly - all bad/suspicious
>changes have been noticed in a matter of hours! (for example all
>suspicious crap.me edits can be reverted promptly)
>So my suggestion is to add some global "patrolling" mechanism with
>division to regions (maybe by countries, maybe by country regions for
>large countries). So if there are people interested in some region,
>they will review the changesets, if there is nobody interested -
>nobody will review, but changes will be in database anyway - so no
>preventing of edits.
>P.S. Second step would be more automated checks but that is a separate
>topic and should only go after this first one is solved/implemented.
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170317/db82977c/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list