I'd suggest a special usertype for batch operations, and combine that with a notification system so as to enable that account for one batch.
The usertype should have the username of the uploader with a random number attached (fe cetest0000 to cetest9999) to distinguish between sessions. The username should be enabled shortly before carrying out the scripts/upload by the server. The uploader could enable his temp account by filling in a web form with sufficient "required fields" I suggest: username bounding box for all changes description of change modified data (list of tags) intention of batch operation The form would return by email the username to be used for this upload. The email ensures that the uploader can be contacted. The notification script could also create a backup of all changes done immediately after, so as to facilitate removal if required. May this is redundant, as date and time are available to select. Normal users should have their number of changes per upload limited to say a few hundreds a time. This could be supported in JOSM and merkaartor by a warning system when 90% of the maximum upload has been reached and the user should upload. Some finetuning of the above may be necessary. Gert Gremmen ----------------------------------------------------- Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Gert Gremmen ----------------------------------------------------- Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Philip Homburg Verzonden: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:53 AM Aan: Talk Openstreetmap Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Code of conduct for automated (mass-) edits In your letter dated Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:08:50 +0200 you wrote: > as OpenStreetMap draws more and more sophisticated users, we're > also seeing more scripts or, as they would be called in Wikipedia, > "bots", modifying data. > > 1. Make a plan of what you want to change, and discuss in relevant > forum (usu. mailing list). If there are many objections; drop the > plan. If there are few objections, maybe exempt certain areas or > objects created by certain people in order to respect their > objections. Remember that they can easily change things back again > if you act against their will, so don't even try to play the > superiority card. > > I would also accompany this by the notion that if you see an > automated edit that you believe has problems, and it has not been > discussed or documented, it's ok to revert it. I think there should be two technical things in place: One thing is a structured way of rolling back edits. There should be a way of reporting large scale edits, and getting them removed from the database. The second thing is a reporting script that reports on large scale edits in a timely fashing. As far as politics go, I think that it would a good idea to just re-use the current structure for introducing new map features. Before you run a script you first propose it and only run it when enough people cast a vote in favor of running the script. For example, a good way of completely destroying the JOSM/Validator's duplicate node detection feature is to fill the database with a huge number of aumatically generated duplicate nodes. :-( _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk