Ban bots!!!!!!!!one!!! I don't really like how they run on the whole world, and not even on a country level. Why are they just editing one node here and there, it could make more programmic sense to download an appropriate-sized area, work through it (doing what ever checks these bots deem important) and then upload the 'corrections' for that area. This certainly makes it easier if people implement a bots=no on areas to flag that bots should not mess with their turf.
On 7 April 2010 13:15, andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 April 2010 21:50, Valent Turkovic <valent.turko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:41:22 +0200, Frank Sautter wrote: > > > >> maybe this service could also be implemented on the openstreetmap.org > >> website, as the ito osmmapper is frequently offline (as it is at the > >> moment) > > > > I agree we shouldn't depend on 3rd party service for such important > > feature like watching for malicious activity. > > > > If other bots implement "bot=yes" tag then it would be trivial to filter > > them, right? > > I'm using bot=yes on some bigger, bot-like, edits often. > > > > > But still ideal situation is that bots also use much smaller areas for > > edits so that you see if some bot has changed something in your area of > > interest, right? > > That would be good but on the other hand lots of very similar changes > should be grouped together in one changeset for convenience, if our > tools can't cope with it then let's fix the tools. Otherwise you > might get 10k changesets in on run, each changing a single node, just > for the sake of not generating too big bboxes. > > The ideal situation would be having infinite processing power etc. :) > > But with the existing limitations, I think the "show bot edits" check > boxes is a fair approximation. Frederik said it wouldn't be a > complete solution to the problem of easy monitoring changes in your > area, I think, because sometimes the bot edit is just the one you're > interested in. But it is a nice feature if we don't claim that it's a > solution to this problem. It would be a nice feature on its own. > > On a different note, Frederik, you said you wouldn't put the "history" > tab on the website and didn't think it was a good thing. Is that > precisely because of the bboxes problem (i.e. that the edit needs not > intersect the current view, just its bbox), or is there another reason > you said that? > > Cheers > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
