Absolutely, per
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
the plans must be first documented and discussed. Since this affects
the local NSW community it should have been posted here on talk-au.
The example you gave of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/442899224/history is precisely one
reason why this process must be followed.
In my opinion we should have all their changesets reverted, and then
proper notice should be first given to give a chance to discuss the
changes proposed and it's implications before moving ahead.
On 8 February 2017 at 11:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> One mapper (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/LPISourceTagFix) has taken on
> themselves to 'harmonise' all the source tags that they consider should be
> 'NSW LPI Base Map'.
>
> No consultation - mass mechanical edit.
>
>
>
> I had some source tagged LPI Hydrology .. these too have been changed.
>
> See Way: Tomalla Creek (442899224) as an example.
>
>
> I don't appreciate the edits, I see no benefit from them.
>
> There are many more that could be done along these lines .. the major
> example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing and bing mm (where is
> the numerical year and mm is the numerical month). But I would similarly see
> no point in it.
>
>
> I think this should be discussed here .. rather than some page that you may
> only come across in some distant future.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
