On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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...)
My motivation wasn't voting, but using the changesets as a sort of flexible discussion system. You could see a communication stream via a bbox. > 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". I concur. I think voting often leads to bad things. Flagging changesets might be useful, with some kind of metamoderation, but /as things stand today/, I think this goes against the spirit of the project because "Who decided whose a moderator". - Serge _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
