Hi Frederik, I'm glad the issue gets to be discussed, as it will show up more and more frequently. Clearly we need some conflict resolution rules (similar to wikipedia's "3 revert rule"), oversight and dispute resolution. We need to strike a balance between giving new users the benefit of the doubt while not tying down experienced users with the boring work of explaining themselves and revisiting previously mapped locations.
In this case my traces prove that I have visited the bridle way that he changed to residential during the last 3 months. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nic%20Roets/traces/197038 Unfortunately he also combined a footway and a residential road (that should not be combined!) in another city (Potchefstroom). Once again my traces indicate that I visited the location during the last 5 months : http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nic%20Roets/traces/104661 Getting someone from OSM-ZA to visit those locations to resolve the dispute seems counter productive. Grant Slater messaged him regarding some of this other mistakes he made and did not receive a reply. A google search of the user indicates that he's a South African called Pieter Du Preez now living the UK. So his mischief may not be limited to South Africa :-(. Like you, I don't feel like the data I contributed is "my data". And I don't need the Pretoria map for navigation or professional work. So there is really no incentive for me to clean up after this guy. It's just my opinion that OSM will benefit if all his contributions after October 5 were reverted. Matias wrote : > <generic proposal of banning potlatch> :-P Or change potlatch so that it will not delete or modify objects last edited by other users. Then it would at least be easy to delete anything they did. > I think having changesets ... will help alleviate this issue. Changesets wouldn't do much. According to itoworld, this user had many "sessions".
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
