Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
On 05/10/14 09:49, Lester Caine wrote: there should be a block on the deleted element being removed until the 'damage' is repaired. Something that JOSM at least tries to help with, but iD ignores? Where the damage is the breaking of a relation, iD is not ignoring it, it is actively but silently deleting the membership, so that the newbie gets the presentational effect they desire, without ever becoming aware of the implications. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 00:35:20 +0100 David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: I think iD has taken totally the wrong approach. If the concept is too difficult for the target audience, it should have refused the operation, rather than hidden the problem. Simply refusing to delete seems rather unhelpful. I'd much prefer the user to be presented with a dialog box that explains the problem in simple terms before allowing them to either continue with the delete or seek assistance. If the user requires assistance a note could be opened stating something along the lines of I require assistance deleting element x for reason y, please help me.. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
On 05/10/14 11:25, Andy Street wrote: I think iD has taken totally the wrong approach. If the concept is too difficult for the target audience, it should have refused the operation, rather than hidden the problem. Simply refusing to delete seems rather unhelpful. I'd much prefer the user to be presented with a dialog box that explains the problem in simple terms before allowing them to either continue with the delete or seek assistance. If the user requires assistance a note could be opened stating something along the lines of I require assistance deleting element x for reason y, please help me.. Which sort of ties in with my constraints on relations. If an edit is breaking something it's easy enough to say unable to proceed because ... but ideally the API should be able to find a new missing bit and add it into the relation? Only blocking something when the new edit does create a conflict because the relation is now broken? -- 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] Vandalism in London
On 04/10/14 01:47, Antje (OpenStreetMap) wrote: Even the Inner ring road is damaged (3124618 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3124618). This is the only specific one you identified. I assume you are referring to http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25784400 which has the blank equivalent comment of commit, and and no source, as do all the user's other changesets. This was done with iD which has a bad reputation for collateral damage, and without a sensible commit comment, it is difficult to work out what was intended, but I suspect that this relatively new editor is not actually malicious. That might have to be revised if you can work out the intent of the edits and it becomes clear that they had malicious intent. I would suspect that the editor is taking on too much for their level of experience. I would also have a general concern that such large numbers of edits may be based on copyright sources, but without understanding what they have been doing (changeset lists for this sort of edit are just too long to work out the theme of the edit), I can't work out the true source. iD's Bing Imagery tag is pretty useless, as it will put it there even if they never looked at the imagery. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
On 04/10/14 09:57, David Woolley wrote: This was done with iD which has a bad reputation for collateral damage, and without a sensible commit comment, it is difficult to work out what was intended, but I suspect that this relatively new editor is not actually malicious. That might have to be revised if you can work out the intent of the edits and it becomes clear that they had malicious intent. Looking a bit more carefully, it does look like this changeset is a mass deletion with no associated real edits (the only changes are the resulting fixups to relations), so, if not malicious, it is probably a mistaken attempt at personal mapping. Looking at one of the deleted ways, woodpecker_repair has considered it to be accidental. The big problem with relations is that they tend to be subject to frequent edits, so reverts may fail, because they would take out a subsequent legitimate change. In this particular case, the same person probably damaged relations in multiple edits, making only their very last change affecting the relation revertable. Maybe there should be some super revert tool that takes a list of changesets, and will revert objects that were last changed by any of them. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
On 04/10/2014 10:14, David Woolley wrote: ... it is probably a mistaken attempt at personal mapping. That's what it looked like to me, certainly. The big problem with relations is that they tend to be subject to frequent edits, so reverts may fail, because they would take out a subsequent legitimate change. In this particular case, the same person probably damaged relations in multiple edits, making only their very last change affecting the relation revertable. The usual JOSM revert approach is to start at the latest problematic changeset in a series and work backwards to the start; the problem is that it can take out valid edits to the same data as collateral damage on the way. Depending on how large the problem and the non-problematical edits were this can be difficult to achieve perfectly - sometimes there has to be a manual tidying-up exercise. Maybe there should be some super revert tool that takes a list of changesets, and will revert objects that were last changed by any of them. That's pretty much what the JOSM revert plugin does (in fact the way that it manages to do what it does as well as it does is actually extremely impressive). There are other revert options as well of course (the wiki's got details). I suspect that the problem with London is that it's a target for a couple of reasons. One is that it's a known name - a target for actual vandals (of which there are few, thankfully). The other is that there are a lot of people there who are just learning to map stuff, or (like this person, probably) wanted a personal map of something, thought that that is what they were creating, and did a lot of damage in the process. Because London is densely populated and there's a lot of detail, it doesn't take long for other people to modify the affected data, making reverts more difficult - the sooner this stuff is spotted the better (within minutes if possible). If any Londoners don't already, I'd strongly suggest subscribing to a WhoDidIt feed for the area (see the links from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_assurance ) and a new mappers feed (such as http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm.php?zoom=11lat=51.54427lon=-0.14762layers=0B0TFT ). If something is spotted reporting it on IRC (there are usually people in the #osm-gb channel, failing that there are _always_ people in #osm) is probably the quickest way at getting stuff resolved. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
Perhaps the principle OSM editors could emit a warning whenever an edit is undertaken which could invalidate a relation, also noting how many other ways would be affected. This at least would give mappers a chance to consider carefully whether they really know what they are doing. Roger On 04/10/2014 21:34, Robert Scott wrote: On Saturday 04 October 2014, Antje (OpenStreetMap) wrote: I am sorry for the upset: this is the problem with someone carelessly editing at the very least. I'm afraid part of the price of having extremely high standards for relations is eternal vigilance. It is exteremely easy to inadvertantly (subtly) break route relations and I think most average-skilled mappers will have probably done it a few times. It would be unreasonable to expect ways with route relations on them to be considered hallowed ground and only to be edited by those skilled enough to leave the relations in perfect order. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
On 04/10/14 21:58, Roger Calvert wrote: Perhaps the principle OSM editors could emit a warning whenever an edit is undertaken which could invalidate a relation, also noting how many other ways would be affected. This at least would give mappers a chance to consider carefully whether they really know what they are doing. JOSM already warns if you try to delete a member of a relation, although it only lists the relations, and doesn't indicate how many other members they have. It does this at the point where you attempt to delete the member, and goes modal for a confirmation. However, iD gives no warning when you delete the member, and, although it lists the relations at the commit stage, no-one is going to notice that, especially if there are 17 pages worth of way and node deletions, as in this case. Note that both of them fix up the relations, by removing the member, so the relation is never structurally invalid, although, as in the ring road case, it might result in graph that isn't fully connected. I think iD has taken totally the wrong approach. If the concept is too difficult for the target audience, it should have refused the operation, rather than hidden the problem. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
Hi, On 10/05/2014 01:35 AM, David Woolley wrote: Note that both of them fix up the relations, by removing the member, so the relation is never structurally invalid The API would not allow deleting a way that is still member of a relation, so relations will (barring API bugs) always be structurally valid, no matter how braindead an editor is. I think iD has taken totally the wrong approach. If the concept is too difficult for the target audience, it should have refused the operation, rather than hidden the problem. I can see both sides. If you want to delete something for a legitimate reason - meaning: because it just isn't there on the ground - then why should you care in how many relations it is - if it isn't there then it ought to be deleted, period, and you'll be thankful if the editor takes care of ensuring referential integrity of relations for you. Difficulties arise when you delete something in error (then of course pointing out to you how big the effect of your change is would potentially make you rethink), or when you delete something with the plan of re-drawing it. This is not something that an experienced mapper would normally do - they would just improve the object that's there. But newbies who think drawing program when they use an OSM editor are more prone to deleting something and re-creating it. In that case, making the user aware that they'll have to put the newly created thing back into all these relations might discourage them from making that edit. A relation saved, but an improvement lost... JOSM has a plugin that will let you make a replace geometry operation. You draw your new thing, then order JOSM to replace the geometry of the old thing by what you've just drawn, and JOSM attempts to retain the history and tags and relation memberships of the old object. But that, again, is a very advanced operation that will be difficult to sell to a newbie. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
Suddenly I came back to the map just to find that my new bus relations are damaged by some vandal. I’m not rebuilding it. I give up. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
I sympathise Antje, I'm frustrated by vandals in my area (who really should know better, given the length of time they've been active). Post the links for your edits so we can have a look. Cheers Dave F. On 04/10/2014 01:22, Antje (OpenStreetMap) wrote: Suddenly I came back to the map just to find that my new bus relations are damaged by some vandal. I’m not rebuilding it. I give up. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
Here is the list of London bus routes for starters: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bus_routes_in_London The ones that I dramatically improved are the new-style route_master relations, which are: 3, 4, 8-11, 18, 19, 21, 24, 30, 38, 43, 49, 57, 73, 76, 100, 144, 148, 192, 205, 277, 341, 390, 393, 394, 476. I was going to do 453 because of the Borismaster, but I am doubtful. I’m well known for extremely strict standards in bus routes because I just want nothing but the best on OSM: If you open the route 30 relations (unaffected by the incidents), you can see the effort I put into making the routing perfect, from the stops to the directions and even the operators. Given the military-precision effort, I don’t have the perseverance like most of you do because I now have university to attend to. Even the Inner ring road is damaged (3124618). Maybe we need a second “bus route czar”. Antje.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
