As osm grows the chances that somone will try to damage the map grows. Maybe a new user should have their edits checked when they first join and then build trust that way. Make it a random check but put the priority on the new users. If somone does a large edit then it can be flagged to be checked etc.
A photogallery system called fotopic.net uses this kind of system to stop new users uploading pornographic images. It should only take a few trusted users to check on things. Jack Stringer On Jul 10, 2009 10:10 AM, "Roland Olbricht" <roland.olbri...@gmx.de> wrote: Hello, > Goal > > Prevent creation of new sock puppet accounts for potential acts of > vandalism on larger... Well, in the way described, it will conflict with a couple of legitimate use cases. Is there a real vandalism problem on the map? Although I've been working for almost a year with a lot of the map data, I have not seen any piece of intentional vandalism. > * allow larger daily bbox for changes A couple of weeks ago, I discovered that the subway stations in Roma are incomplete, so I added stations to my best knowledge. Or, an even more opposed case: A couple of day ago somebody added arabic names to all the coutries. I would consider this as a legitimate use, but it invokes almost the entire planet. > * allow more daily edits (number of affected nodes, ways...) Even something simple like the bus route I've added yesterday might easily touch more than a hundred elements. On the other hand, you could damage significantly the map with less than a hundred destructive edits. > * Regular editing activity I personally do a lot of mapping in my holidays, so a pattern like massive activity from time to time will appear from the system's point of view. On the other hand, it is easy to tune the amount of activity of a malicious bot to any pattern expected by the server as "regular". > * Track uploads There might be a lot of use cases, e.g. naming things, adding POIs, bus routes and so on that require no GPX data at all. > * Regular activity in other systems? (mailing lists, forums, wiki, > svn repository, diary/bl... This makes contributing even more complicated. Why should I be forced to use these frills? There might be users who can't contribute something useful in one or more of the above systems (What should a non-programmer contribute to the SVN Repository? Should every user write wiki pages that nobody wants to read, just to display honest acitivity?) or just aren't interested in certain tools (not everybody wants to blog). > * Rated by other users (manualy: reverted changesets, reported > spam in diary, getting comme... Oh, sounds like the eBay reputation system. Do we really want to have an intervention by lawyers which comments are admissible and which aren't? An implementation of the whole idea would not only take a lot of ressources of the implementers, but also affect significanty normal users. The way mappers and other users use the system in a legitimate way is so widespread that any reputation system would end up bullying a smaller or bigger fraction of the users. Remember that the API has intentionally been kept small to make usage simple. On the other hand, there is no strong need to prevent vandalism because there is only sparse vandalism. So I would suggest to keep the whole concept away from the map. Cheers, Roland _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lis...
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
