[OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Rory, most of those queries were copied from the current JOSM validator
autofixes.  I don't think they were discussed, but they might have been
mass applied without much thought by all sorts of editors.  What's worse,
there is no way to track those autofixes. The wiki page has a huge warning
box at the top, which should stop accidental misuse.  At this point, there
is no officially agreed wiki page with the "allowed" queries.  Once the
tool matures a bit, we can create a place for the community approved
tasks.  My proposal - place queries for evaluation on a wiki page under a
warning box. Let community review them. Then we can move them one by one to
the "green" page.

There are two ways to use the tool - you can write your own query, run it,
and fix whatever it is you want to fix. That's the power user mode -
anything goes, no different from JOSM or Level0. And there is another one -
where you go to osm wiki, read the instructions, find the task you may want
to work on, and go at it.   The community reviews wiki content, tags
different pages with different explanation or warning boxes, etc. The
discussion could still be on the forum, or here, or in IRC, .... The tool
cannot automate the review process - if someone wants to break the rules,
they can still write whatever query they want and run it.  Or use JOSM or
Level0.

Just like Éric Gillet said - every tool can be used for good and bad
things. Having the right explanations on the wiki will solve 80% of the
problems.

P.S. You can star any wiki page, and it will email you when the page
changes. Just like a forum.


On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Rory McCann <rory at technomancy.org> wrote:

> On 16/10/17 14:02, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
>> Rory, thanks, and that's why I think it is a bad idea to do bot edits
>> without first running it through my tool.  If we do a mass edit, we have to
>> go through a very lengthy community consensus study, which might still miss
>> things. Then the bot developer might still make an error that is not likely
>> to be caught for quiet some time, until it is very hard to revert. On the
>> other hand, if a query is made, reviewed by community, and later many
>> people try going through it, accepting and rejecting changes, we will know
>> if we caught all the corner cases like the one you just gave. If noone has
>> rejected anything for a long time, a bot can simply pick up the query and
>> finish running it.  Much safer.
>>
>
> I don't see how your tool will stop (say) an American making this sort
> of assumption, and edit? How should community review happen in your
> tool? I'm not going to monitor your wiki page. Automated edits should be
> discussed on the talk or imports mailing list. But I don't think you've
> done that for the queries you've done already, and I'm not sure how your
> programme requires that.
>
>
> As for "community consensus" - TBH, very hard to define.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171016/5b1b3d98/attachment.html>