2017-11-13 20:52 GMT+01:00 Andy Townsend :
> On 13/11/2017 19:36, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> > That's why I think Sophox is a much better and safer alternative to
> JOSM's autofixes.
>
> At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times
> previously, with JOSM autofixes you're perf
Joseph, we are mixing multiple issues: interface and the actual tasks.
Sophox interface is very similar to MapRoulette and Osmose in terms of
viewing issues. You see issues everywhere on the planet, and you are
invited to edit them anywhere you like.
The "pick from choices" approach is also not n
"Andy, as I stated before, JOSM doesn't force you to edit in your area - it
shows you whatever data you download."
This isn't quite true, or rather, you're not understanding how people map.
JOSM will let you edit any data in the world, but you have to be interested
in that area first: I can be sa
Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Look at Wikipedia, or any large social organization for that matter. At
> the village/startup level, you have very few codified rules, but as the
> group grows to a city/corporation size, it becomes more and more
> bureaucratic. We may not like it, but clear rules help co
sent from a phone
> On 13. Nov 2017, at 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> You are right that =0 and =no seem like nobrainers, but if we have listed
> them as deprecated, we should not use them.
or we should check if we really want those to be listed as “deprecated”
cheers,
Martin
_
@mmd,
I have noticed that the proposed fixes were not marked with vote=1. I fixed
them.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_fixes#Proposed_fixes
I'm not sure if vote=1 is needed for the multiple-choice challenges. They
were originally copied from the officially deprecated tags, so technical
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Michael Reichert
wrote:
> Hi Yuri,
>
> Am 13.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> > Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. As for
> this
> > case -- this is not a mechanical edit. Per definition. I looked at each
> of
> > these three
Hi all,
Lurking, but first time posting. I was trying to just ignore this
thread, but at this point, I had to add my 2c... My story: I am rather
new to OSM community (although I joined in 2009[1], probably before most
of you reading this:), came here (again) recently, full of optimism to
improve wo
While it is easy to throw tons of accusations and be less civil, I will try
maintain my level of decency. I have forwarded you a snippet of one of the
emails I received (without the sender name). Also, you are welcome to
organize some independent person you trust in NYC to stop by and examine it
i
On 13/11/2017 22:31, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
... Maybe I should write up an FAQ with all the arguments raised
here, and simply refer to them? It would save on typing.
No, maybe you should just listen and act on the feedback that you're
getting here. There have been an awful lot of replies in t
@mmd, thanks, inline:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:32 PM, mmd wrote:
> > * Added voting - experimental tasks require two users agreement to
> change DB
>
> I assumed this to be a mandatory part of the new process. However, some
> recent edits made by a "Serbian OSM Lint bot" [1] via your tool
> ind
Hi Yuri,
Am 13.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. As for this
> case -- this is not a mechanical edit. Per definition. I looked at each of
> these three features, analyzed them, and thought this is a reasonable
> change. You c
Thanks Christoph, I love #386 too. As I repeatedly stated - my goal is to
allow simpler way for community to fix issues, which in turn would lower
data consumer entry barrier. Not prove someone incorrect (despite the
appearance). Several specific issues and suggestions were raised in this
thread,
Am 07.11.2017 um 07:29 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> The tool has been thoroughly reworked, thanks to many good suggestions.
> Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas - they help
> us all move forward and reach agreement.
>
> What's new:
> * Added "reject" vote button
> * Tasks ca
Hi Yuri,
Am 13.11.2017 um 13:20 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> Christoph, I don't think this works for any community that grows beyond a
> certain size, especially when the community is not in the same
> location/building/land otherwise, and doesn't see each other every day.
> Look at Wikipedia, or any
On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. [...]
If you have made this assumption about anyone who you have communicated
with in the OSM community in the past you would be well advised to stop
that and review the views you
Hi,
On 11/13/2017 08:52 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times
> previously, with JOSM autofixes you're performing edits in an area where
> you've already edited. You're presumably somewhat familiar with what's
> there
I'll also repeat somet
Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. As for this
case -- this is not a mechanical edit. Per definition. I looked at each of
these three features, analyzed them, and thought this is a reasonable
change. You could call it a mistake (I am human), but it cannot be called
mech
On 13/11/2017 21:19, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Andy, as I stated before, JOSM doesn't force you to edit in your area
- it shows you whatever data you download. OverpassT can provide it to
JOSM anywhere too. Your query in Sophox can be limited to an area, or
can be anywhere - it all depends on the
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 13/11/2017 19:36, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> > That's why I think Sophox is a much better and safer alternative to
> JOSM's autofixes.
>
> At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times
> previously, with JOSM autofixes
On 13/11/2017 19:36, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> That's why I think Sophox is a much better and safer alternative to
JOSM's autofixes.
At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times
previously, with JOSM autofixes you're performing edits in an area where
you've already edited
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> On 13/11/17 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
>> if an accepted tool already does something in a certain way, and noone is
>> raising any objections to it, I think other software should follow in the
>> same foot steps.
>>
> > ...
>
>> I haven't
On 13/11/17 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
if an accepted tool already does something in a certain way, and
noone is raising any objections to it, I think other software should
follow in the same foot steps.
> ...
I haven't heard anyone saying that JOSM validator autofixes do a bad
thing until t
Hi,
On 11/13/17 13:04, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>> Christoph, thanks for clarifying. I should have been a bit more
>> careful with that word. Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not
>> authoritative for deprecation, than what is? "Communi
Christoph, I don't think this works for any community that grows beyond a
certain size, especially when the community is not in the same
location/building/land otherwise, and doesn't see each other every day.
Look at Wikipedia, or any large social organization for that matter. At the
village/startu
On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Christoph, thanks for clarifying. I should have been a bit more
> careful with that word. Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not
> authoritative for deprecation, than what is? "Community consensus
> that something is not to be used" has t
Christoph, thanks for clarifying. I should have been a bit more careful
with that word. Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not authoritative
for deprecation, than what is? "Community consensus that something is not
to be used" has to be documented somewhere, right?
Per https://wiki.openst
On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> The wiki deprecation only lists one =no: highway=no, but we are not
> discussing that one yet --
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features
>
> I used the word "deprecated" in a more general term, to mean anything
> that communit
I only think I will print Frederick's mails, and regularly read them
again and again.
Deprecated implies «bad, should not exist in OSM database, no one
reviewed this object for the last years». It has very strong
implications in OSM vocabulary. Using it here would have the effect to
readers «Ye
JB, try to avoid swearword outburst, not helpful. Are you taking issue
with the word "deprecated"? The proper word should probably have been
"unnecessary" to discuss the layer=0, per JOSM's naming:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/data/validator/unnecessary.mapcss
The wiki depre
Le 13/11/2017 à 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
You are right that =0 and =no seem like nobrainers, but if we have
listed them as deprecated, we should not use them.
Deprecated? Where did you find that?
(Swearwords somewhere here. Did someone already said that you mix issues?)
@mmd, thanks, but I never said anything about oneway=no, and never proposed
to remove it. Andy Townsend introduced that into the discussion, and JB
elaborated on it. It is not listed in the deprecated list, nor is it in
JOSM autofixes, so it is a moot point. BTW, I did find oneway=1 ->
oneway=yes
Am 10.11.2017 um 09:57 schrieb JB:
> oneway=no have the same meaning as no information
Very careful with removing oneway=no! Some highway=* combinations have
oneway=yes per default, and oneway=no is used to override this default
value (!!).
Obviously, removing such a oneway=no tag with the intent
If someone points out a problem, surely it's better for the
developer to think about whether they have a point, about whether your
software should act this way, rather than just saying "But JOSM does it!".
Do *you* think removing layer=0 is a good idea? What is the objection to
removing it?
Just
I disagree once more. You are mixing two problems which are completly
different. The one you introduce being easier to agree with than the one
previously at hand.
Layer=0, oneway=no have the same meaning as no information. It can be
useful in some cases, as explained by Andy. Deleting them have
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:07 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 20:48, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
>> JB, the "layer=0 removal" is one of the JOSM validations - it
>> automatically gets suggested to anyone editing an area with that object,
>> with the "fix" button autofixing it. JOSM doesn't
On 09/11/2017 20:48, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
JB, the "layer=0 removal" is one of the JOSM validations - it
automatically gets suggested to anyone editing an area with that
object, with the "fix" button autofixing it. JOSM doesn't have a "mark
this autofix as invalid" button, which means that even
JB, the "layer=0 removal" is one of the JOSM validations - it automatically
gets suggested to anyone editing an area with that object, with the "fix"
button autofixing it. JOSM doesn't have a "mark this autofix as invalid"
button, which means that even if you don't autofix it, the next person
revi
Le 08/11/2017 à 19:43, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
removing layer=0
Please don't. Once again, mapping is done by humans, and layer=0 IS
sometimes useful to humans, even if computers don't need it.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://li
Thanks Mikel, very well put.
There are currently hundreds of deprecated features & JOSM validations,
with hundreds of thousands of instances. They seem to be good candidates
for community reviewing and fixing. Some of them have been there for over
10 years without being addressed. Setting up a bot
Hey everyone -- let's do stick to the topic at hand. My takeaways from the good
points on the discussion here from Frederik and Yuri.
* It's ok to have different points of view* Being respectful of each other is
important. Very important* Let's not make disagreements personal
Online communication
TLDR; Please read my previous email, and lets discuss the actual tool, its
capabilities, and how it can fit and add value to OSM ecosystem, while
minimizing potential negatives.
Frederik, I have offered to have a direct video conversation with you to
better understand your concerns, explain my goa
Hi,
On 07.11.2017 07:29, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas - they help
> us all move forward and reach agreement.
I have a general remark about statements like the above, that is not
related to your specific tool.
Statements like this are aimed
The tool has been thoroughly reworked, thanks to many good suggestions.
Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas - they help us
all move forward and reach agreement.
What's new:
* Tool has a new name: Sophox
* Added "reject" vote button
* Tasks can now offer multiple choices se
Hehe, fun picture, and the article seems to be covering the concept well.
Simon, I don't think anyone was arguing that sanatoriums should be switched
one way or the other globally. As long as there is a clear conceptual
distinction between two types of features (whichever they are), and that
disti
Slightly on topic
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/sanatorien-aus-der-sowjetzeit-urlaub-in-der-vergangenheit-a-1173776.html
is an article on Sowjet "sanatoriums" (sorry German only). Which
explains why our colleagues want to change the tagging, but it just as
clearly shows that such cha
Ryszard, I have disabled the fixing from the "embed" mode - you can still
open the query (using "edit query"), click the "run" button (blue play
button), and fix things from there.
In my spare time, I am still working on the next version, based on all the
useful feedback:
* It will be easy to find
Even without disabling - what a better tool fixes, JOSM's autofix won't
find...
On 17 October 2017 at 09:50, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Well, you kind of can fix one with the other - by introducing a better
> tool and disabling some of the autofixes in JOSM (very easy to do). A more
> complex appr
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:13:12PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Frederik:
>
> > I am appalled that after your abysmal OSM editing history where you more
> > often than not ignored existing customs rules, while *claiming* to
> > follow them, you're now building a service that entices others
Rory, I agree with you - there are always corner cases. And while we
concentrate on the geographical aspect (e.g. "somewhere there might be a
large territory where the tags mean different thing"), the corner case can
actually exist in our own neighborhood, simply because our neighbor
understood s
On 16/10/17 19:49, Tobias Zwick wrote:
Except that's not true. In Ireland "handball" is Gaelic Handball¹
which is a one-on-one game, not a team sport (which is apparently a
different thing²). There are some sport=handball's tagged in Ireland.
Now the tag is clearly wrong, and we need to figur
Hi,
On 17.10.2017 10:32, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> The thing is - we have been discussing hypothetical issues so far, not
> the real ones.
Users have been blocked and edits reverted for indiscriminately applying
JOSM's autofixer to large swaths of data. But those who do that are
usually aware that
Polyglot, I don't think there is a substantial **real** problem in JOSM
with the autofixes. And yes, I have worked with JOSM devs and was
impressed at the speed of response.
The thing is - we have been discussing hypothetical issues so far, not the
real ones. And hypothetically, allowing a simp
If there would be real problems with autofixes in JOSM, it's easy to report
those as a bugs or enhancement requests. JOSM's issue tracker may be
antiquated, but it does work and JOSM's developers are very responsive.
If JOSM users who apply these auto fixes would worsen the data, then they
would g
Well, you kind of can fix one with the other - by introducing a better tool
and disabling some of the autofixes in JOSM (very easy to do). A more
complex approach would clearly require a separate topic(s) and a
substantial dev involvement.
P.S. No, https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ doesn
> compromise between the two, how about I disable the "embed edit". If
> the query is executed from a link, without the query editor mode, users
> can only view results. But in the power mode, the users can still use
> the tool to write a query they need, test and edit things as they need.
> So
On 17/10/2017 08:29, Tobias Zwick wrote:
Does the dev API have real (=mirrored) data?
It has whatever data you add to it. I've used it in the past to
demonstrate a "different way of mapping something" by copying everything
from live to dev in a small area and then making the changes in that
I get your point, especially regarding the appliance of the JOSM
fix-button as a "by-the-way" fixing.
Though, you can't fix possible issues with of one tool by introducing
another tool. People will not stop using (that feature of) JOSM. That is
why I think, if you think you detected a problematic
>> Anyway, generally, with everyone raising the alarm about this tool, it
>> would be a friendly gesture to either take the tool offline for now or
>> set it to read-only mode
>
> Or have it run on the dev API.
Does the dev API have real (=mirrored) data?
I agree that the tool requires some additional work. It seems almost all
of the criticism has been directed at the hypothetical "community clicking
rampage" - where the query is stored on a wiki, and some user runs it
thoughtlessly. At the same time, several skilled users have expressed their
desi
Hi,
On 10/16/2017 11:10 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Anyway, generally, with everyone raising the alarm about this tool, it
> would be a friendly gesture to either take the tool offline for now or
> set it to read-only mode
Or have it run on the dev API.
> So then, the solution is simple: Make the
Richard, thanks for the link and your analysis.
Eric Raymond once said that "Every good work of software starts by
scratching a developer's personal itch." Judging by how many different
individuals have created various challenges and fixers, there is clearly a
big irritation - highly messy, uncle
Michael, I can only judge by my own experience adding validation autofix
rules - I added a number of Wikipedia tag auto cleanups to JOSM, and they
were reviewed by one or two JOSM developers and merged, probably because
they were deemed benign. I don't know about the other rules, but I suspect
man
Number 2.
>> [...] This was a topic in this thread already and it was
>> voiced that inventing new tags just to be used by this tool in not
>> acceptable and I agree with that. The other tools also do not
>> require that.
>
> [...] Not showing it can also be easily done by a slight
> modification
Hi Yuri,
Am 16.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> Rory, most of those queries were copied from the current JOSM validator
> autofixes. I don't think they were discussed, but they might have been
> mass applied without much thought by all sorts of editors.
Could you please give examples f
I will split this into several answers, that is what a threaded
structure is for.
> JOSM fix button
I am not sure what is your point with JOSM's fix button. Let's not
deviate from the topic: your tool.
If you find, something is wrong with JOSM or any other tool in that
matter, better create an ow
> Except that's not true. In Ireland "handball" is Gaelic Handball¹
> which is a one-on-one game, not a team sport (which is apparently a
> different thing²). There are some sport=handball's tagged in Ireland.
> Now the tag is clearly wrong, and we need to figure out something about
> that. But
Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> For example, RU community wants to convert amenity=sanatorium
> -> leisure=resort + resort=sanatorium. Clicking on a dot shows a
> popup with the suggested edit. If you think the edit is correct, simply
> click Save.
I've been a bit loth to get involved with this one bu
Rory, most of those queries were copied from the current JOSM validator
autofixes. I don't think they were discussed, but they might have been
mass applied without much thought by all sorts of editors. What's worse,
there is no way to track those autofixes. The wiki page has a huge warning
box at
On 16/10/17 14:02, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Rory, thanks, and that's why I think it is a bad idea to do bot edits
without first running it through my tool. If we do a mass edit, we have
to go through a very lengthy community consensus study, which might
still miss things. Then the bot developer m
Rory, thanks, and that's why I think it is a bad idea to do bot edits
without first running it through my tool. If we do a mass edit, we have to
go through a very lengthy community consensus study, which might still miss
things. Then the bot developer might still make an error that is not likely
t
On 15/10/17 15:14, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> 1. If this does not require humans because both tagging schemes are
> mutually translatable (i.e. lets say for sport=handball <->
> sport=team_handball), then, the edit can be made automatically by a bot.
Except that's not true. In Ireland "handball" i
On Monday 16 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:
> I was thinking about possible changes to the tool that would make it
> a useful tool for the community, and at the same time not violating
> any policy.
Sure, if you want to do that.
In my opinion there is however not really a need for more tools in
I was thinking about possible changes to the tool that would make it a
useful tool for the community, and at the same time not violating any
policy.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 16 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> Would Yuri's tool be OK, if the propose
On Monday 16 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Would Yuri's tool be OK, if the proposed changes were limited to
> objects that were created/last edited after survey to the person that
> is using the tool ?
>
> I was thinking of a scenario where people try to help with a
> tag-renaming proposal.
> S
Martin, could you take a look at my last reply to Tobias - I have actually
expressed some concerns with bots in general (very surprisingly,
considering my heavy involvement with it previously). I think this tool
can actually make the path to bots easier for the community, making new
bots safer and
Would Yuri's tool be OK, if the proposed changes were limited to
objects that were created/last edited after survey to the person that
is using the tool ?
I was thinking of a scenario where people try to help with a
tag-renaming proposal.
Such a tool would be handy to help them locate all objects
Frederik:
> I am appalled that after your abysmal OSM editing history where you more
> often than not ignored existing customs rules, while *claiming* to
> follow them, you're now building a service that entices others to do the
> same.
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:09 AM Christoph Hormann wro
Lester, the naming of this service is still a work in progress, and might
have confused a few people. My apologies for that. I do plan to create a
proper name, logo, domain name, and SSL certificate once I have some spare
time. If anyone wants to take care of that, your help is appreciated.
The
On 15/10/17 22:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> You've built a query engine to work with OSM and
> Wikidata and are pushing that relentlessly, to a point where the
> decision of just how much Wikiadata linking we want in OSM is totally
> taken out of our hands.
Seconded ... personally I have still to be
Tobias, as promised, a thorough response.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> So, the initial question is: What is the conceptual use case for such a
> tool? Where would be its place in the range of available OSM tools?
>
I think my main target is the JOSM validator's "fix
Yuri,
On 10/15/2017 11:53 AM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Christoph, kindly explain, instead of making snide remarks. You have not
> added to the discussion, but instead raised the level of toxicity of
> this channel even further. Note that several people have already noted
> that this channel is tox
2017-10-14 12:05 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
> On Friday 13 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> > I would like to introduce a new quick-fix editing service. It allows
> > users to generate a list of editing suggestions using a query, review
> > each suggestion one by one, and click "Save" on
On 15 October 2017, at 13:51, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>Andy, first off, this whole email thread was about "hi, this is a new, rough
>around the edges tool I'm building, that MIGHT benefit SOME people"
>Suggestions/ideas welcome. When you say "stop" - stop what? Stop coding?
The only thing I wo
It's both the splash screen & value for your created_by tag!
DaveF
On 15/10/2017 14:24, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Christoph, once again, what does Wikidata have to do with anything in
this thread? Wikidata is a heated and important point, and just today
I saw another great use of it - https://ope
>Thank you for a very well thought out analysis.
Surely the analysis should be done at the front of the project. Making a
change during the project has costs. The further you are into the project
normally the higher the cost is to correct something. This is general not
specifically your project
Hi
"this tool has nothing to do with Wikidata"
"Currently, the tool creates two changeset tags:
created_by=OSM+Wikidata 0.1"
Am I confused by what you mean by "this tool"?
DaveF
On 15/10/2017 13:04, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Andu, with all due respect, you are misrepresenting things. I have
rec
Tobias, this is the best and most constructive email I have seen yet!
Thank you for a very well thought out analysis. I want to give it justice
and do a thorough reply, but only after getting some sleep. Thank you for
restoring my faith in the proper communication.
Christoph, once again, what doe
Hi Yuri
I am not aware of the record of your previous interactions with the
community and I think you cannot be blamed to not respond to any toxic
feedback and/or accusations thrown at you here, whether they may be
justified or not.
So, I give you the benefit of the doubt and write up this honest
On Sunday 15 October 2017, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> You did indeed receive one message in your favour - I miscounted.
> That's 1 in favour, 1 question (from someone who has been critical
> elsewhere) and 7 against. Maybe that counts as a majority in your
> favour in some places, but it doesn't
Andy, first off, this whole email thread was about "hi, this is a new,
rough around the edges tool I'm building, that MIGHT benefit SOME people"
Suggestions/ideas welcome. When you say "stop" - stop what? Stop coding? I
have not done any significant amount of editing since last month, right
around
> I have received praises on OSM-RU channel,
Wow, within the large number of active mappers there is a very broad range
of opinions. One or two people saying this is wonderful is not a consensus
within OpenStreetMap that it is.
Within OpenStreetMap the authority is normally accepted to be the lo
On 15/10/2017 13:04, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Andu, with all due respect, you are misrepresenting things. I have
received praises on OSM-RU channel, and that's where I got my first
bug reports and suggestions that were quickly fixed. The current
mailing thread also received a praise from Steve.
Andu, with all due respect, you are misrepresenting things. I have
received praises on OSM-RU channel, and that's where I got my first bug
reports and suggestions that were quickly fixed. The current mailing
thread also received a praise from Steve. I have received a private email
explicitly prai
On 15/10/2017 11:04, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Sunday 15 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
[...] I was following up on the Christoph Hormann's
idea of the "bot=no" tag, to "allow mappers to opt out of bot
edits on a case-by-case basis."
No, you were not, likely because you misunderstood my
On Sunday 15 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> > > [...] I was following up on the Christoph Hormann's
> > > idea of the "bot=no" tag, to "allow mappers to opt out of bot
> > > edits on a case-by-case basis."
> >
> > No, you were not, likely because you misunderstood my suggestion
> > which i
Christoph, kindly explain, instead of making snide remarks. You have not
added to the discussion, but instead raised the level of toxicity of this
channel even further. Note that several people have already noted that
this channel is toxic and refused to participate in it, rather than being
produc
On Sunday 15 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> [...] I was following up on the Christoph Hormann's
> idea of the "bot=no" tag, to "allow mappers to opt out of bot edits
> on a case-by-case basis."
No, you were not, likely because you misunderstood my suggestion which
is likely because you don
Jochen, not exactly. I was following up on the Christoph Hormann's idea of
the "bot=no" tag, to "allow mappers to opt out of bot edits on a
case-by-case basis." Since every query is essentially a separate,
human-operated bot, it seemed appropriate to use it for this case, in a
form of nobot=botID
2017-10-14 15:57 GMT+03:00 Jochen Topf wrote:
> Do I understand this correctly? You are creating tags in the OSM
> database for your private tool? I hope there is some misunderstanding
> here, because that isn't acceptable behaviour.
The problem is much much larger.
This whole wikidata unfort
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
