Re: [OSM-talk] "helpful" remote correctional edits (or "please don't correct bank ATMs in the Sahara desert" - was: Re: Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in va
sent from a phone > On 19. Jul 2020, at 23:27, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > > no doubt many of our gravel tracks were correct at the time and have now been > paved or bound. I have thought about this, the tags were added in 2017 and while the asphalt didn’t look as if it was paved yesterday, it’s not completely excluded that the road was paved in between Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "helpful" remote correctional edits (or "please don't correct bank ATMs in the Sahara desert" - was: Re: Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in va
Incredibly enough surfaces also change, no doubt many of our gravel tracks were correct at the time and have now been paved or bound. 19. júlí 2020 kl. 20:33, skrifaði "Martin Koppenhoefer" : > sent from a phone > >> On 19. Jul 2020, at 14:48, Hauke Stieler wrote: >> >> Blind reverts are also pretty bad. In my case, I talked to other people >> in our community and only reverted some of the edits, which are very >> unplausible (like "grade4" with "surface=paved" and imagery showing a >> paved way). > > I also just today corrected some roads which all had the highway=track tag > with surface=gravel and > track type grade2 or 1, but actually some were paved narrow > residential/unclassified roads in the > country side, with speed limits (30), reflectors and guard rails in parts, > some were signposted > private driveways, and some houses, farmyards and b, some were actually > tracks. It’s hard to > tell from the imagery (that there are houses is obviously visible, but the > difference between > gravel and asphalt may be hard to tell), and it was misleading for me, until > I came there and > understood that the information in the area in OpenStreetMap was unreliable > (looked like detailed > tagging but then half of these details were fictional). > > Cheers Martin > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "helpful" remote correctional edits (or "please don't correct bank ATMs in the Sahara desert" - was: Re: Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in va
sent from a phone > On 19. Jul 2020, at 14:48, Hauke Stieler wrote: > > Blind reverts are also pretty bad. In my case, I talked to other people > in our community and only reverted some of the edits, which are very > unplausible (like "grade4" with "surface=paved" and imagery showing a > paved way). I also just today corrected some roads which all had the highway=track tag with surface=gravel and track type grade2 or 1, but actually some were paved narrow residential/unclassified roads in the country side, with speed limits (30), reflectors and guard rails in parts, some were signposted private driveways, and some houses, farmyards and b, some were actually tracks. It’s hard to tell from the imagery (that there are houses is obviously visible, but the difference between gravel and asphalt may be hard to tell), and it was misleading for me, until I came there and understood that the information in the area in OpenStreetMap was unreliable (looked like detailed tagging but then half of these details were fictional). Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "helpful" remote correctional edits (or "please don't correct bank ATMs in the Sahara desert" - was: Re: Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in va
Hi, On 19.07.20 14:02, Andy Townsend wrote: > 1) Please do check that the thing that you are "correcting" is > plausible. A bank ATM in the middle of the Sahara Desert is not. > > 2) Do check if the thing, if at all unlikely, hasn't been added by a > user who has had previous fantasy mapping reverted or who's changeset > comments suggest that their edits might not entirely align with > reality. In the case of the "shopping centre adder", they've been given > a 0-hour "message that they have to read before editing again" and their > previous changesets show the comment "This changeset has been reverted > fully or in part by changeset XYZ where the changeset comment is: ABC" Blind reverts are also pretty bad. In my case, I talked to other people in our community and only reverted some of the edits, which are very unplausible (like "grade4" with "surface=paved" and imagery showing a paved way). But thanks for the insides, quite interesting and frightening what happens around the world! Hauke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
