[OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon May 27 13:50:14 UTC 2019

Am Mo., 27. Mai 2019 um 15:23 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>:

>   Occasionally there are examples of people
> accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally
> do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely
> explain why in this particular case the suggestion isn't a good one.

As the iD editor is promoted as and often used by newbies (not
exclusively), it is no wonder those newbies accept improved suggestions,
they do not have the experience and knowledge which would be required to
judge about such things, and as they are on the "official page" it looks to
them like an "official suggestion".

> You'd also need to ask the user whether they were prompted to make an
> "improvement" by the editor or whether they added it manually (speaking
> personally I'd usually draw railway platforms as areas and I can
> certainly think of places where I'd draw a linear footpath along as
> well).

After looking at some features with both tags in my area, actually only
very few were from iD and added recently (yet), the rest (very few in
total) had been added years before. I refrained from commenting the new
changesets, because it was new users and I didn't want to scare them away:

Complaining about an edit of theirs which was suggested to them by "us",
would have either looked as if we were fighting in the inside (left hand
vs. right hand), or as if this was a completely chaotic project (unclear
how to act), or at least one where as soon as you contribute you would have
to justify yourself against some selfappointed block warden (de:Blockwart)

I agree there are cases where a hint can make sense but still requires
judgement, but our main front page editor shouldn't suggest automatic
tagging improvements which are rejected by the majority of the community,
and not even those where a significant number of people rejects them.

Commenting the changesets and creating noise with new users is not the way
to go, as polite as you may be able to write. We might excuse to them for
reverting this part of their edit, at most ;-)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190527/c0415f6e/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list