[OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Tobias Zwick]

I get your point, especially regarding the appliance of the JOSM
fix-button as a "by-the-way" fixing.

Though, you can't fix possible issues with of one tool by introducing
another tool. People will not stop using (that feature of) JOSM. That is
why I think, if you think you detected a problematic issue there in that
editor, it should be discussed in a separate topic.

On 17/10/2017 00:57, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Michael, I can only judge by my own experience adding validation autofix
> rules - I added a number of Wikipedia tag auto cleanups to JOSM, and
> they were reviewed by one or two JOSM developers and merged, probably
> because they were deemed benign.  I don't know about the other rules,
> but I suspect many of them also went this route.  Should have they been
> discussed more widely? I don't know, but that question is complicated,
> just like "what is a local community?" question. What a few devs may see
> as benign, others may say needs a discussion, right?
> 
> Mass editing is a different matter.  We consider mass editing when one
> person goes out to fix something everywhere in the world.  But when we
> provide a tool that automatically fixes something that you are looking
> at, we don't view it as such.  Or at least we don't view it when it
> happens as part of JOSM, but we do when it happens in my new tool. Of
> course there is an important difference - JOSM doesn't guide you towards
> those cases.
> 
> I think massive "by-the-way" fixing is far worse than the targeted fix
> of a single issue.
> 
> When you want to fix a single issue in many places, you become a subject
> matter expert.  You know all about that change, how it interacts with
> other tags, what to watch out for, how to handle bad values, etc.  For
> example, when fixing wikipedia tags, you would see the types of mistakes
> people make, wrong prefixes people use, incorrect url encodings, hash
> tags in urls, incorrect multiple values, ... .    When you simply click
> "fix" because JOSM validator tells you it can fix it automatically, you
> don't have that knowledge, so it effectively becomes a distributed
> mechanical edit without the "reject" capability.  My tool tries to
> address this - to build domain experts in a narrow field, and let those
> experts review changes one by one. I do not discount the value of local
> knowledge, but it is not a panacea - you must be both to make
> intelligent choices, and in some cases, the domain knowledge is more
> important than the knowledge of a specific locale.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Michael Reichert
> <osm-ml at michreichert.de <mailto:osm-ml at michreichert.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Yuri,
> 
>     Am 16.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb 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.
> 
>     Could you please give examples for (a) the mass appliance of these rules
>     and (b) rules which have not been discussed but should have been
>     discussed?
>     > 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, ....
> 
>     Just for future readers: IRC and Telegram channels are no replacement
>     for a mailing list or a forum with a public readable archive where you
>     can look up the discussions years later.
> 
>     Best regards
> 
>     Michael
> 
> 
> 
>     --
>     Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>     ausgenommen)
>     I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     talk mailing list
>     talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>