On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:15:23 +0100, Peter Miller wrote: > I suggest that this should be done at the level of a change-set, not > at the feature level. There would a change-set patrol page/rss feed > with an indication of which pages have been patrolled and by whom. > Change-sets can either be approved or challenged. A challenge might be > on the basis that it was an honest edit by an inexperienced > contributors or blatant spam etc. There would then need to be a > process to review challenged changesets further and resolve any issues.
I like this approach, but have a slight worry about the time it would require. This isn't to say "don't do it", just "let's work this bit out". In areas where you have a sufficient ratio of active users to changesets this would work nicely with the right tools. Maybe, Peter, your OSM Mapper tool (which I love - http://www.itoworld.com/static/osmmapper) could indicate whether a user is a long-time contributor or quite a new contributor? Can we have a set of flags on user accounts to say "new user" for the obvious and "under probation" for users who have submitted changesets that were challenged and reverted? What about areas where we have very few mappers? Who will spot vandalism in small pacific islands, or countries quite new to the OSM scene, or even remote rural parts of Germany and the UK? Some vandalism - accidental or deliberate - is very obvious, like a crazy railway line running all over a town. Other vandalism could be more subtle. I've never quite worked out why you'd want to join the teams who monitor revisions on Wikipedia, it looks pretty dull to me! But great if people want to do that. Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
