[OSM-talk] Suggested mass edits
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Mon Apr 19 01:37:16 UTC 2021
Frederik (and list): I 100% agree with your deeper analysis of these "clusters" (when they are found to be such things).
On occasion, I am also able to get some positive traction, "bettering OSM" when I take the time to see IF such identifiable information can be determined about "larger problems," where what's wrong isn't a single thing in a single place. Yes, when they are created by a single user, contacting that person and asking about their edit(s) has (with me, your mileage may vary) more-often-than-not begun a good dialog and even OSM-relationship with that person, where the end result over weeks, months years is that we are both able to both teach each other and learn from each other. That's a real win-win for not only our project, but each of us as individuals, and I know that I certainly appreciate that. It doesn't always happen, but I'm grateful when it does.
It's also true that (with practice), larger patterns of "brokenness" can be discovered, such as a failed import or even simply an import that had a subtle, undetected-until-now problem that would have otherwise blithely continued on until now.
I am of the opinion that when it comes to "editing away other's people's mistakes," unless they are very, very obviously wrong (such as a node labeled type=multipolygon) contacting the author is usually the best first step. The way that this builds better community in our project cannot be overstated. But yes, before "mass edits," it really is helpful to look for larger patterns and / or contact the author with a polite question about what you believe you know about the error (maybe it really isn't one, and you are about to learn something).
> On Apr 18, 2021, at 3:34 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> On 4/18/21 19:20, stevea wrote:
>> Along with the usual caveats about "mass edits" (these must be done very carefully and with deliberate, targeted purpose)
> Another usual caveat is:
> If these buggy objects appear in clusters, they might hint at a deeper problem. Are many of them created by the same user(s) or by the same editor(s)? If that is the case, more research might be appropriate so that editors or workflows can be improved. Sometimes analysis of the broken data can also point to a broken import or mass edit that has so far been undetected and will, upon closer look, have more problems than just these obvious ones. In such a situation, simply deleting the buggy objects will remove the "red flags" that would otherwise have pointed at the broken import or mass edits.
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the talk