[OSM-talk] Mechanical Edit?

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 25 19:28:57 UTC 2021


On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 1:14 PM Casper Kersten <casperkersten1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear readers of the OSM-Talk mailing list,
>
>
>
> First and foremost, my thanks to Mike Thompson for reviewing my changesets
> and for only copying and pasting an abridged version of the workflow I
> shared, which makes it look sloppy even though I took great care to ensure
> good quality. You can find the detailed version at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108430155 .
>
The purpose of abridging your workflow was for brevity, I didn't mean to
make it look "sloppy."  I apologize if my abridging made it look that way
(I don't think it did).


>
> The automated edits code of conduct specifically lists correcting obvious
> typos as acceptable usage. That’s what I was doing earlier this week, so I
> don’t understand the complaints.
>
It is an acceptable usage, but you still must document it and seek
approval, and I don't think you have done that.  Further, the code of
conduct states that the geographic extent of the changesets should be
reasonable "Changes grouped into small regions are easiest to digest for
human mappers (e.g. "fixed highway tags in Orange County")."

>
>
>
>
> If you think the sizes of my boundary boxes are an issue, then consider
> the alternative, which is either ten, a hundred or a thousand tiny and
> nearly identical changesets. What would be the feasibility of reviewing all
> of those?
>
Per county or metro area would be suitable as the code of conduct
suggests.  I suspect that many counties/metro areas would not have any
changes.  This is something that could be put forth in your proposal and
discussed with the community.



Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210725/a2561ef3/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list