On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > This is however orthogonal to the changeset-based messaging that I have > suggested. If I want to say something about a specific changeset, it should > be possible to attach my comment to that changeset instead of having to make > a general localised note for the area in question, saying "I don't think > changeset #12345 was a good idea...".
Commenting on changesets would be good, but it also needs to be easier to find those changesets, and link that up with other accumulated local knowledge. I can't really picture how such an interface would work, but the idea would to be easily see "what's been going on" in the area you're looking at, participate in conversations about stuff (individual objects, imagery, changesets...) > I think it all depends on what you think a "-1" means. The experience on Wikipedia is that reverting a changeset is a pretty offensive action to take, requiring great care. If "-1" is a vote for reversion, then presumably equal care ought to be exercised. And IMHO a better option is to discuss the change, rather than to simply vote it down. "Hey, are you sure about tagging these as tracks, they look like walking paths to me?" builds community better than "-1". > Problem is that there are many things that I see and I find fishy where I > don't have the resources or the patience for extensive research. Currently, > in these cases I do exactly nothing, which means that the information "1 > person found this fishy" is lost. That information in itself does not have a > value. But if there was a sufficient number of other people who were of the > same opinion then maybe someone should/would investigate. Ok, so maybe "-1" is the wrong naming. "Query" or "flag for review" might be better. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
