From: Frank Sautter <openstreet...@sautter.com> > hallo someoneelse, > > i'm the one behind xybot. >
Thanks - hi. (re landuse/natural=wood/forest): > you are right, i will take out those rules where xybot is just guessing > the optimal values and ask the maintainers of > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ or > http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php to add them to their validation > tools so a human brain can set them to the correct value. Thanks. > >> Another problem is where there is: >> tag_a=value_a >> tag_b=value_b >> If it thinks that tag_a is a misspelling for tag_b it'll change the >> tagging to the following: >> tag_b=value_a >> which is just plain wrong. > no, such changes are prohibited in the algorithm. > The reason that I mentioned that was due to changes to way 16359613. xybot did highlight an error that I made here (which is good) but unfortunately resolved it the "wrong" way. Here a river (the orginal way 16359613) flows northeast into an area which is a man-made landscape - it's drained by pumping water out along a series of canals referred to locally as "drains". A later section of that river (some distance away) had been mapped as "water=drain". While you could argue that the "water=" part is wrong, the "=drain" part is certainly correct for that part that had been mapped, as would "=river" be - it's both. I added on some of the intermediate bits from NPE and joined the two sections. This resulted in "waterway=river, water=drain". Whilst accidental, this does correctly give the sense of how that stretch of water fits into the landscape. My error was to let that apply to the "natural" part of the river as well as the artificial part (and it may need someone closer to it on the ground to work out where that is), and to let the source tag that I added propagate too far west. What seems to have happened is that on April 8th way 16359613 was changed from: waterway=river water=drain to just waterway=drain I've since changed it to waterway=river, which is more correct but doesn't communicate the "draininess" of the northeastern section. Next time I'm up there I'll have a go at improving things, including adding some of the many other rivers, canals and drains that aren't currently fully mapped. >> If it is necessary to "validate" the data against a pre-conceived idea >> of what it should contain (and I'm not convinced that it is) wouldn't it >> be better to collect lists of "errors" by last modifying user and >> suggest via mail that they review them? > i think this would result in a massive spamming of the osm users and i > don't think that the messaging infrastructure of osm is able to handle that. > I don't think that telling someone that you're going to change something that they've mapped could be construed as "spamming". If you're making so many changes that OSM's messaging infrastructure would be unable to cope maybe you shouldn't be making so many changes? You could argue that trimming a space off the end of a name is always valid, and maybe certain typos (although people have argued against that on this list in the past), but beyond that there really needs to be communication. At the very least, this would enable discussion of, for example, why "notes=" isn't valid but "note=" is - if people don't know that "incorrect" tags have been changed they won't use the "correct" ones next time. The tags used in OSM should be used by consensus. If someone wants to use a tag, it's valid. If more people use it, it's more valid. If someone decides to start mapping something as X instead of Y because everyone else maps it as X, that's a good outcome - but for that to happen they've got to know about it and not have stuff "randomly" change on them behind the scenes. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
