[OSM-talk] mechanical edits was:Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of osmarender:nameDirection - blatant tagging for the renderer

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sat Mar 23 18:09:16 UTC 2019


Mar 23, 2019, 6:17 PM by simon at poole.ch <mailto:simon at poole.ch>:

>
>
>
> Am 23.03.2019 um 13:28 schrieb Mateusz      Konieczny:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mar 23, 2019, 1:04 PM by >> ajt1047 at gmail.com <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/23/19 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mar 23, 2019, 9:59 AM by >>>> simon at poole.ch <mailto:simon at poole.ch>>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...  Producing false updates (aka no real content) just              obscures that fact and makes it more difficult to              determine which areas need to be revisted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It seems to me as not a real problem. There            are many, many different indicators of such places
>>>> and automatic edits are suitable to remove            only very small part of them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a real problem, for a couple of reasons - one is that          "this object might be out of date" warnings in e.g. Vespucci          won't trigger
>>>
>>>
>> Is it really a problem? It is        only heuristic and there was no place where I ever mapped that
>> I had problem because I run        out of obvious indicators that something needs to be fixed,        resurveyed
>> or remapped.
>>
>
> Time since last edit is the only -non- heuristic measure of      staleness in OSM. There are other ways to determine this, but they      are are an order of magnitude more involved (essentially you need      to retrieve prior versions and start comparing tags and      geometries). And I wasn't even thinking specifically of Vespucci      in this case (in principle for Vespucci it could be worked around      by setting a fake survey_date in a mass edit).
>
>

It is still heuristic. It is unable to distinguish between "it was all mapped 2 days ago" and
"someone reverted vandalism two days ago" or "offset in area mapped from Bing was adjusted
to known correct one".

And anyway, any area that I encountered had more objects reported as worth resurveying than it
was feasible to resurvey.

>
> And to repeat, I'm not against removing tags when they are      really an issue. For example last year we removed note tags from      the locations of the major car sharing operation in Switzerland,      roughly a 1'000 objects, because they indicated that the objects      shouldn't be edited (originally they were imported), 
>
>
I fully agree here.

> but there is      no need to do so just for superficial aesthetic reasons, just as      other normalisation for the sake of normalisation is contra      productive in an OSM context.
>
That is probably root of our disagreement.

I consider edit changing

area=yes
massgis:IT_VALC=WS3
massgis:IT_VALDESC=WOODED SWAMP MIXED TREES
massgis:OBJECTID=62053
massgis:PALIS_ID=0
massgis:POLY_CODE=3
massgis:SOURCE=DEP-WCP
massgis:SOURCE_SCA=12000
massgis:WETCODE=16
natural=wetland
source=DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) - April 2007 (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm>)
wetland=swamp
to

natural=wetland
massgis:OBJECTID=62053
massgis:IT_VALDESC=WOODED SWAMP MIXED TREES
source=DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) - April 2007 (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm>)
wetland=swamp

as valuable, helpful and useful cleanup of a bungled import
(massgis:OBJECTID, massgis:IT_VALDESC may be also worth removing 
but I would not do it blindly).

Or changing FIXME=whatever to fixme=whatever.


>> I opened >> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17512 <https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17512>>>  (if it will pass I will open equivalents
>> for iD and Vespucci).
>>
>>
>
> You don't need to do anything separate for Vespucci, simply make      a PR against > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json <https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json>
>
>
Yes, I planned to open PR (like I did with iD in https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/6091 <https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/6091> )
and I had already bookmarked that file.

If adding tags to list of discardable tags is preferred over mechanical edits I will start doing this,
main goal of reducing pollution in lists of displayed tags is also achieved this way.

I thought that mechanical edits would be preferable as it allows people to use this tag
(mechanical edit will not block future additions, one can op-out from it etc) while
discardable tags are much stronger effect.

But if for some reasons (even if I disagree with them) using discardable tags is preferred 
I will happily use it.

Opening issue for JOSM and making trivial PRs for Vespucci and iD is much, much easier
than running a mechanical edit and prevents people from adding tag in future, so I will switch
to this method for future proposals to eliminate utterly pointless tags.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190323/c082ae78/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list