Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
On reflection, I don't really laugh with scorn in the face of the Mechanical Edit Policy. But it certainly looks like a mess to me. My take would be to attempt to extract the spirit of that policy and not bother kvetching over the letter of it. The phrase "rough consensus and running code" is okay, as long as you dont beat non-coders over the head with it. I'm hoping to have a blitz edit of policy docs during the festives, there is a link to my dewrite of the DWG's draft Mapping Code of Conduct which i should really dare post here :) Jo / zool On December 18, 2014 6:59:24 PM GMT, Rovastar wrote: >Andy, > >"[Citation needed] :-) " >;-) > >Well please share the thoughts about what suggestions you have. > >I shudder to think how many man hours Math has placed/wasted into doing >this >so far, and how many more he should do for these (small) changes. > >Cheers, >John > > > >-- >View this message in context: >http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/No-more-voting-on-mechanical-edits-tp5827513p5827661.html >Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >___ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits
Andy Allan writes: > > This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response > over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine. > Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter > end. That's an over-reaction. > > No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful > community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people > having their own opinion, not just "no consensus" among a few dozen > people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by > "noticeable opposition" is not a scalable policy either. This concept > of regional "opt-outs" is also badly thought through, since nobody is > "in charge" of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut > around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having > area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're > trying to build. > > I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way > to organize ourselves. This isn't it. > > Thanks, > Andy Thank you Andy. I will repeat on this list what I said in conversation yesterday in a different context: OSM must be protected against any norm within OSM (to the extent that discussing bulk edits is a norm) being misused for disruptive ends. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
Andy, "[Citation needed] :-) " ;-) Well please share the thoughts about what suggestions you have. I shudder to think how many man hours Math has placed/wasted into doing this so far, and how many more he should do for these (small) changes. Cheers, John -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/No-more-voting-on-mechanical-edits-tp5827513p5827661.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
On 18/12/2014 18:14, Rovastar wrote: And Andy I am surprised at you quoting a wiki - I though you didn't believe in such crowd sourced projects. [citation needed] :-) I actually spent quite a bit of time last night trying to suggest ways to draft his proposals to "help scratch his itch" in a way that would be more acceptable to everyone (addressing questions such as "how do we ensure that new stuff gets added with the correct tags?"). Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and we are where we are today. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
Brian Prangle wrote: Matthij's proposal as it now stands is not controversial and is merely a typo cleanup. I'm amazed at his patience. My assumption is that Matthijs is preparing an academic paper about OSM in which he will reveal the number of hours work required per byte of non-controversial database change, with some extrapolations about the ultimate consequences for the project. I can't imagine anyone would go through this otherwise. Phil. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
The only thing that surprises me here is how long Math carried on with this. With no pleasure I say "I told you so". There was no way this was going through, a single objection by an OSM dinosaur and DWG will overrule. And Andy I am surprised at you quoting a wiki - I though you didn't believe in such crowd sourced projects. As said before the Mech Edit policy is a joke. No-one has ever made an mech edit and followed it. DWG don't want change, they like bad data. If we had a policy that people that wrote it actually used to make mech edits with we actually might get somewhere. Otherwise the options are to do nothing or break the rules and just do it anyway. The unofficial rule is if no-one notices it is ok but addressing forthcoming/potential changes in the mailing list will always have an objection. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/No-more-voting-on-mechanical-edits-tp5827513p5827654.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits
Andy, you make some excellent points. It would be interesting to know how decisions can be made - it seems the mailing list is no longer representative of editors, and neither is the wiki Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 18 December 2014 at 17:25, Brian Prangle wrote: > > Hooray for Andy Allan - some commonsense! > > On 18 December 2014 at 13:36, Andy Allan wrote: >> >> On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 wrote: >> > I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing. >> >> I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming >> farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through, >> which he has done, and then because he managed that creating more and >> more, it's now in the position where people are proposing keeping >> demonstrably incorrect data in the database for no coherent reason. >> Moreover, despite all common sense showing that it never actually >> happens, we're expecting other people to spend their free time on >> meaningless, brainless drudge-work in order to fix simple typos by >> hand, in some kind of "well this sainsbury's might not actually have >> an apostrophe maybe it fell off the wall or something" nonsense. "Oh >> boy, I'm sure glad that all these typos are there for me to fix by >> hand! That's the /best/ use of my free time, it's /such/ fun." >> >> This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response >> over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine. >> Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter >> end. That's an over-reaction. >> >> > No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave >> it at >> > that "we agree to disagree". It is usual in such cases to keep the >> status >> > quo ante. >> >> No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful >> community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people >> having their own opinion, not just "no consensus" among a few dozen >> people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by >> "noticeable opposition" is not a scalable policy either. This concept >> of regional "opt-outs" is also badly thought through, since nobody is >> "in charge" of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut >> around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having >> area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're >> trying to build. >> >> I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way >> to organize ourselves. This isn't it. >> >> Thanks, >> Andy >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits
Hooray for Andy Allan - some commonsense! On 18 December 2014 at 13:36, Andy Allan wrote: > > On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 wrote: > > I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing. > > I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming > farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through, > which he has done, and then because he managed that creating more and > more, it's now in the position where people are proposing keeping > demonstrably incorrect data in the database for no coherent reason. > Moreover, despite all common sense showing that it never actually > happens, we're expecting other people to spend their free time on > meaningless, brainless drudge-work in order to fix simple typos by > hand, in some kind of "well this sainsbury's might not actually have > an apostrophe maybe it fell off the wall or something" nonsense. "Oh > boy, I'm sure glad that all these typos are there for me to fix by > hand! That's the /best/ use of my free time, it's /such/ fun." > > This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response > over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine. > Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter > end. That's an over-reaction. > > > No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it > at > > that "we agree to disagree". It is usual in such cases to keep the status > > quo ante. > > No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful > community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people > having their own opinion, not just "no consensus" among a few dozen > people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by > "noticeable opposition" is not a scalable policy either. This concept > of regional "opt-outs" is also badly thought through, since nobody is > "in charge" of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut > around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having > area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're > trying to build. > > I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way > to organize ourselves. This isn't it. > > Thanks, > Andy > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
On 12/18/2014 2:24 AM, Dan S wrote: Hi Matthijs, The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's assume there's a relative meaning of the term;) Consensus is not unanimity. For consensus I generally point at IETF (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-3.3) although there are other definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Consensus-flowchart.png is helpful as an overview - the test for consensus is only a small part of achieving consensus. In the past, most proposals have either failed to engage the community or been supported with near unanimity with little middle ground. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
We're boiling the ocean here.Matthij's proposal as it now stands is not controversial and is merely a typo cleanup. I'm amazed at his patience. On 18 December 2014 at 13:59, Chris Fleming wrote: > > I really struggled to see how this mechanical edit can do any harm. I > certainly don't see people manually fixing all of these, and frankly there > are better things to do with our time. > > If people are watching locally for changes, they should see them happen > which is quite a good trigger to check the changes and local area, for > other things that need doing. > > Cheers > Chris > > > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:37 Andy Allan wrote: > >> On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett >> wrote: >> >> > All your mechanical edit does >> > is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great >> effect - >> > it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited >> set >> > of circumstances. >> >> So let's JFDI then, right? >> >> Thanks, >> Andy >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
2014-12-18 12:19 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse : > On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote: >> >> Hi Matthijs, >> >> The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since >> consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus >> is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's >> assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;) > > Maybe I've been using the word inappropriately all these years but I've > always thought that "concensus" meant "general agreement" - the idea that > "we, as a community, generally think this" not that "absolutely everyone > agrees with every part of something 100%". It doesn't mean "10 people who > could be bothered ticked a box on a wiki page". It means, "we, as a > community, have thought about it, discussed it, and although some people may > disagree, the general feeling of the community is X". I see - in my understanding "consensus" is, at least formally, a stronger term than "general agreement" - "nem con" is perhaps a good equivalent, meaning that no-one disagreed (although some may have abstained). I do recognise it's not always always used that way. > My DWG mail to Matthijs (part of which was selectively quoted to this list) > contained a number of suggestions about how to best to proceed. These > included better explaining why a change now rather than later was > beneficial, and why some of the other suggestions raised last time wouldn't > work for the problem as he sees it. It also covered the issue of how to > ensure that new mappers use the "correct" tags. Thinking about these other > issues is actually far more important than whether or not to do X mechanical > edit. Well I'm sorry for intervening in half a conversation. I was motivated by my perception that someone somewhere had a mistaken impression of unanimity! Best Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits
+1 Regards, Stuart > On 18 Dec 2014, at 13:36, Andy Allan wrote: > > On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 wrote: >> I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing. > > I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming > farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through, > which he has done, and then because he managed that creating more and > more, it's now in the position where people are proposing keeping > demonstrably incorrect data in the database for no coherent reason. > Moreover, despite all common sense showing that it never actually > happens, we're expecting other people to spend their free time on > meaningless, brainless drudge-work in order to fix simple typos by > hand, in some kind of "well this sainsbury's might not actually have > an apostrophe maybe it fell off the wall or something" nonsense. "Oh > boy, I'm sure glad that all these typos are there for me to fix by > hand! That's the /best/ use of my free time, it's /such/ fun." > > This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response > over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine. > Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter > end. That's an over-reaction. > >> No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it at >> that "we agree to disagree". It is usual in such cases to keep the status >> quo ante. > > No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful > community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people > having their own opinion, not just "no consensus" among a few dozen > people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by > "noticeable opposition" is not a scalable policy either. This concept > of regional "opt-outs" is also badly thought through, since nobody is > "in charge" of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut > around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having > area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're > trying to build. > > I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way > to organize ourselves. This isn't it. > > Thanks, > Andy > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
I really struggled to see how this mechanical edit can do any harm. I certainly don't see people manually fixing all of these, and frankly there are better things to do with our time. If people are watching locally for changes, they should see them happen which is quite a good trigger to check the changes and local area, for other things that need doing. Cheers Chris On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:37 Andy Allan wrote: > On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett > wrote: > > > All your mechanical edit does > > is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great effect > - > > it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited > set > > of circumstances. > > So let's JFDI then, right? > > Thanks, > Andy > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > All your mechanical edit does > is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great effect - > it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited set > of circumstances. So let's JFDI then, right? Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits
On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 wrote: > I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing. I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through, which he has done, and then because he managed that creating more and more, it's now in the position where people are proposing keeping demonstrably incorrect data in the database for no coherent reason. Moreover, despite all common sense showing that it never actually happens, we're expecting other people to spend their free time on meaningless, brainless drudge-work in order to fix simple typos by hand, in some kind of "well this sainsbury's might not actually have an apostrophe maybe it fell off the wall or something" nonsense. "Oh boy, I'm sure glad that all these typos are there for me to fix by hand! That's the /best/ use of my free time, it's /such/ fun." This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine. Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter end. That's an over-reaction. > No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it at > that "we agree to disagree". It is usual in such cases to keep the status > quo ante. No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people having their own opinion, not just "no consensus" among a few dozen people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by "noticeable opposition" is not a scalable policy either. This concept of regional "opt-outs" is also badly thought through, since nobody is "in charge" of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're trying to build. I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way to organize ourselves. This isn't it. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18/12/14 12:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote: >> However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small >> > discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that >> > needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them >> > otherwise. >> > >> > Finding small problems like this does have an advantage, but it looks like >> > fixing them mechanically is actually missing the opportunity to improve the >> > map in other ways at the same time. > I have tried contacting local mappers before (in the case of the > betting/bookmaker change), but response has been very limited (less > than 5% of the contacted mappers responded). So this is not really a > solution. > > An alternative would be to create Notes for every misspelling. > However, that would result in the creation of hundreds of new Notes, > and I doubt people would be really happy with that. You are 'mechanically' finding things that you consider to be a problem, but it IS assessing the nature of the problem on a local basis which some of use are objecting to. Posting hundreds of notes would not be acceptable, but simply changing something without a little local review is in my book just as bad. Ed has highlighted the advantage of that local review and I feel that blindly fixing these small elements may actually detract from a better review. If one element is wrong, what else IS wrong in that area. The errors need publishing somehow and in the absence of anything better perhaps the notes process IS the proper mechanism, even if not ideal. I do try and keep those down in my local area. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
> Finding small problems like this does have an advantage, but it looks > like fixing them mechanically is actually missing the opportunity to > improve the map in other ways at the same time. As it happens, the local Sainsbury's that I just updated also made me realise that there is now aerial imagery which shows it since it was first estimated, and I've used that to define the car park, convert the petrol station node to an area, and improve the detail on the building shape: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27549414 - a slightly larger changeset than just adding an apostrophe (had the building had a shop tag). And as I look to see if the changes have rendered, I realise the Harvester next door is missing (I've eaten there) and I can add that from Bing too. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small > discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that > needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them > otherwise. > > Finding small problems like this does have an advantage, but it looks like > fixing them mechanically is actually missing the opportunity to improve the > map in other ways at the same time. I have tried contacting local mappers before (in the case of the betting/bookmaker change), but response has been very limited (less than 5% of the contacted mappers responded). So this is not really a solution. An alternative would be to create Notes for every misspelling. However, that would result in the creation of hundreds of new Notes, and I doubt people would be really happy with that. Kind regards, Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote: Hi Matthijs, The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;) Maybe I've been using the word inappropriately all these years but I've always thought that "concensus" meant "general agreement" - the idea that "we, as a community, generally think this" not that "absolutely everyone agrees with every part of something 100%". It doesn't mean "10 people who could be bothered ticked a box on a wiki page". It means, "we, as a community, have thought about it, discussed it, and although some people may disagree, the general feeling of the community is X". My DWG mail to Matthijs (part of which was selectively quoted to this list) contained a number of suggestions about how to best to proceed. These included better explaining why a change now rather than later was beneficial, and why some of the other suggestions raised last time wouldn't work for the problem as he sees it. It also covered the issue of how to ensure that new mappers use the "correct" tags. Thinking about these other issues is actually far more important than whether or not to do X mechanical edit. Best Regards, Andy Townsend ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18/12/2014 12:05, Ed Loach wrote: Perhaps just posting Overpass links and locals manually making the changes would be better? I think Ed has hit the nail on the head here. All your mechanical edit does is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great effect - it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited set of circumstances. However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them otherwise. Finding small problems like this does have an advantage, but it looks like fixing them mechanically is actually missing the opportunity to improve the map in other ways at the same time. J. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
Perhaps just posting Overpass links and locals manually making the changes
would be better? I compared the Overpass before and after links only to find
that the nearest item on the first link is missing on the second as the
Sainsbury(')s is missing a shop tag. And now it also misses the adjacent petrol
station node as well.
So I'll amend these two manually.
Ed
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18/12/2014 10:48, Dan S wrote: 2014-12-18 10:39 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse : On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote: If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the section 'Oppositions and opt-out'. At the risk of restating the obvious, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy must still be followed, including the bit where it says "You must not go ahead with your plans if there is noticeable opposition". So this particular proposal is not "opt out". If there is "noticeable opposition", then it shouldn't go ahead. Andy, The Mechanical Edit Policy, which you just linked us to, quite clearly says Matthijs must provide "Information on how to "opt out"". It says it in two places. Indeed, but it says it _after_ it says "You must not go ahead with your plans if there is noticeable opposition", so the section in "Execute" is somewhat moot if there is "noticeable opposition". Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
This is only an issue with the demo I generated, not with the proposal itself (in the proposal itself, I explicitly restrict changes to objects with a shop key). Thanks for pointing out this discrepancy. I generated an improved Overpass Turbo link: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6Aj -- Matthijs On 18 December 2014 at 11:46, Ian Caldwell wrote: > You are not checking that the entities are shops. In my area the Overpass > Turbo finds the following node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502411262 a > bus stop, from a NaPTAN import. > > > Ian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
You are not checking that the entities are shops. In my area the Overpass Turbo finds the following node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502411262 a bus stop, from a NaPTAN import. Ian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits
I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing. We are hearing repeats of the same things over again, and appear to now be bikeshedding import and mechanical edit policies. No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it at that "we agree to disagree". It is usual in such cases to keep the *status quo ante*. Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18 Dec 2014 10:40, "SomeoneElse" wrote: > > On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote: >> >> If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular >> areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the >> section 'Oppositions and opt-out'. > > > At the risk of restating the obvious, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy must still be followed, including the bit where it says "You must not go ahead with your plans if there is noticeable opposition". > > So this particular proposal is not "opt out". If there is "noticeable opposition", then it shouldn't go ahead. That is indeed how I intended the proposal. Mappers have both the opportunity to opt out, and the opportunity to voice their opposition. If you believe this is not clear from the text of the proposal, feel free to suggest an improvement to the text. Kind regards, Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
2014-12-18 10:39 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse : > On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote: >> >> If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular >> areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the >> section 'Oppositions and opt-out'. > > > At the risk of restating the obvious, > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy must still be > followed, including the bit where it says "You must not go ahead with your > plans if there is noticeable opposition". > > So this particular proposal is not "opt out". If there is "noticeable > opposition", then it shouldn't go ahead. Andy, The Mechanical Edit Policy, which you just linked us to, quite clearly says Matthijs must provide "Information on how to "opt out"". It says it in two places. So I think Matthijs is doing the right thing here - if he did NOT provide opt-out information, he would be violating the policy! Best Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote: If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the section 'Oppositions and opt-out'. At the risk of restating the obvious, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy must still be followed, including the bit where it says "You must not go ahead with your plans if there is noticeable opposition". So this particular proposal is not "opt out". If there is "noticeable opposition", then it shouldn't go ahead. Best Regards, Andy Townsend ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
Hi Matthijs, The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;) For the record, I still think taking an "opinion poll" of opinions is a useful way to judge the level of community support, as long as we're clear it isn't a binding "vote". Votes/polls can be gamed or skewed but so can mailing-list threads (differently), and it's extremely non-trivial to work out from a discussion thread how much support/opposition/apathy there is. Best Dan 2014-12-18 1:17 GMT+00:00 Matthijs Melissen : > Dear all, > > The DWG has decided not to allow votes for mechanical edits. Andy > Townsend wrote me privately, on behalf of the Data Working Group: > >> Please also don't try and organise "votes" for subsequent mechanical edits - >> the consensus of the comments on the talk-gb list is clear that it's _not_ an >> appropriate mechanism. > > For the sake of transparency, I thought it would be good to share this > message also with the list. > > It is not clear to me why the DWG believes that the consensus on this > list is that voting is not an appropriate mechanism. During the > procedure for my mechanical edits, I had the impression that while > some members, perhaps a majority, were against voting, there were also > members who supported the voting process, or at least thought it is > the best process available. > > Personally, I also don't think this decision is particularly helpful > for the community. For the three mechanical edit proposals I have run, > voting has helped me a lot to gauge the amount of support within the > community. From discussion alone it's hard to estimate if there exists > opposition - often people ask critical questions, which might lead one > to think they oppose the edit, but then these people still express > support when confronted with an approve/oppose question. Also, the > mechanical edit policy states that 'As a rule of thumb, you should > have 90% of the community behind you when you make the edit'. It's > unclear how someone who proposes a mechanical edit can find out what > part of the community he has behind him, when polling the community is > not permitted. > > In any case, the citation above is the decision of the DWG. I respect > this decision, and I will therefore not use voting as a means to gauge > the community's opinion in further mechanical edit proposals. > > Finally, I would like to thank Andy and the rest of the DWG for their > hard work. Even though I don't agree with their decision in this > particular instance, I realize they do a lot of unpaid hard work that > is invaluable for the community. > > Kind regards, > Matthijs > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
