[OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 03.07.2018 04:33, Jason Remillard wrote:> ... and I was quite surprised to find that FIXME> (an 
invalid key) was so prevalent in the database.
Who declared the uppercase version invalid? Where is the discussion to deprecate it?

The English fixme wiki page still declares "Alternate forms include FIXME=*"

> Removing the FIXME tag reduces the learning curve for map editors. 

What specific skill is to be learned here?

 > All of the editors have single-click access to the full history of the object, changes to the 
last modified time or last modified user isn't that big a deal for experienced editors.

To check the object history is something the new user learns later, so first she sees an object 
touched recently by an automated tool, and trusts its correctness.

On 03.07.2018 06:12, Yves wrote:
 > I second Tom and Mikael, maybe a kind of rédaction to keep the date could be done? Not sure it's
 > worth the effort though.

Thanks, but the effort would be even larger than a bot edit; and I agree with you and Fred that its 
not worth it.

On 03.07.2018 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
 > - removes common duplicate confusing people

I'm getting the impression that we cannot find agreements on more important confusions (grass and 
forest landuse/landcover for example), so we start looking at such decorative issues?

On 03.07.2018 10:12, Ed Loach wrote:
 > ... FIXME pre-dates the fixme wiki proposal (if you dig out the proposal you'll see a discussion 
on the talk page about FIXME vs fixme when FIXME was still in the majority if you excluded an import 
which added 140,000 fixme entries) - indeed I didn’t even know there was a wiki proposal. The 
discussion on that wiki talk page decided it didn’t really matter about the case if I recall 
rightly, or this change would have been done years ago.

Ed, your analysis is correct, and probably people used the 'shouting' uppercase for FIXME so it 
jumps into the eye of the next editor more easily.

On 03.07.2018 10:56, Lester Caine wrote:
 > On 03/07/18 09:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 >> Don't forget that new FIXMEs will continue to appear all the time.
 >> Software should be able to deal with both.
 >
 > I'm with you on this Frederik. The correct fix for a 'FIXME' tag is to deal with it or remove it
 > completely if no longer valid, and adding extra change events to 'fixme' only gets in the way of 
that.

Fully agree. As the wiki page says: "This is not a tag for robots nor for any automated edits" - 
that should apply to both, the problem the individual fixme/FIXME marks, and the tag itself.

tom