[OSM-talk] Mechanical Edit?

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Sun Jul 25 19:52:07 UTC 2021


Speaking as a volunteer who (occasionally, but truthfully) commits changes on a sometimes national, international and/or continental level, I find the "county at a time" supposed-tenet as overly restrictive (for MY edits sometimes, and others, too).  I do hear you loudly and clearly that very large bbox extents make changes difficult for one human mind to grasp (for various reasons).  However, it remains true that edits which happen at a, say, continental level (I do "take a deep breath" before I do so, but I always, as is true with all my edits, do so with a commitment to correctness and high quality) are not necessarily "always wrong" or even "suspect" but can be "grasped" with cogent explanation.  Good communication (to and from the author, perhaps including wider community participation, as here) really does help.

I think we are seeing some sausage being made here.  Not to say "that's all" (which feel dismissive and I don't want to do that) but "talking it out more" is better than "talking it out less" (or not at all).

> On Jul 25, 2021, at 12:28 PM, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




More information about the talk mailing list