[OSM-talk] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Fri Jun 12 13:22:12 UTC 2020

On 12/06/2020 12:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> and very rarely intentional.

Point 1:
This is what's always confused me. I occasionally look into world wide 
changeset & it's often one spurious object in another continent, which 
the contributor can't explain.

I'm unsure if it's one specific editor . It takes a concerted effort to 
pan across the globe & load extra data  P2 makes it virtually impossible
Could there be a glitch in the software which augments the changeset 
with the rest of the database?

Point 2:
There needs to be a distinction in the types of large area changesets.
1. Where a contributor pans & loads to make random edits on multiple 
items. This should be discouraged.
2. Global edits to amend one specific item on multiple entities (a 
spelling correction, for instance). As long as the changeset comment 
clearly explains the purpose, this is acceptable as it improves the 
quality of the database.

There is a lot of negativity about large changsets, but assessment of 
them should be based on quality, not quantity.


More information about the talk mailing list