I am fine with that. More realistic stuff would be more functional. To be constructive here (for a change for me) here some more thoughts.
I would even break it down to levels of what you are doing. Here are a few example I have done before with suggested Typo (a few characters difference) e.g. religion=Budist to religion=buddist Updating 1 tag value up to 10 occurrences. Simple IRC wait 2 minute or yes. Updating 1 tag value up to 100 occurrences. IRC chat wait 10 minutes or 2 yes. Updating 1 tag value above 100 occurrences. Mailing list chat. Changing the word/meaning of a tag to correct common usage. e.g. amenity=takeaway to amenity=fast_food Updating 1 tag value up to 10 occurrences. Simple IRC wait 10 minute or 2 yes. Updating 1 tag value up to 100 occurrences. IRC chat wait 30 minutes or 3 yes. Updating 1 tag value above 100 occurrences. Mailing list chat. Implying tag types e.g. denomination = roman_catholic and religion is null --> religion=christian etc, etc, Additionally I would say putting more meaning information into the change sets comments. For example a changeset comment like. "Correcting "amenity=watering place" -> "amenity=watering_place" typo." rather than nothing or just "typos" or "watering place" or something. So it is clearer to all that view the changesets what you are doing at a glance and reverts can be easier on the rare cases that it apply. And is a form of documentation. I would even be up for a separate account to doing many larger changes say. I happily write a wiki article on this if there was a desire from the community. > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:47:55 -0400 > From: andrew.guer...@uvm.edu > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits > > I've just read through http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy > and this thread, and here's my thoughts on the matter. > > It is possible to improve OSM using only the data already within > OSM--with no external knowledge, survey, or other data sources. Typo > fixing and other similar activities do provide benefit. > > > When you make an edit using no external knowledge, you must always > discuss it first. In my opinion, not doing so--even for an edit that > turns out to be correct!--is a detriment to the community, because it is > both risky and antisocial. > > I don't however agree with the policy's requirement of specific forms of > discussion. I think that the discussion required should be proportional > to the change being made. For example, if you notice that three > instances of "amenity=restuarant" were added this week, I think an > appropriate form of discussion would be to hop on IRC, say you're fixing > them, wait until someone says "yay" or 2 minutes has passed, and do it. > But as the risk goes up--either lower certainty or higher impact--the > required discussion should too, from IRC to a quick note on a mailing > list to long mailing list threads with wiki documentation and detailed > notes about methods and tools. > > > Similarly, in minor cases I don't agree with the policy's requirement > for documentation. If someone wants to merge the 10 copies of > "amenity=watering place" into the 1647 copies of > "amenity=watering_place", I don't think there will be any negative > impacts on consumers. But if consumers will be affected then > documentation should be a requirement. I think there should be > guidelines for how to document, and the community should decide (in the > required discussion!) which steps of the guidelines should be followed > in a specific case. > > > The existing requirements for execution look good to me. > > > When someone doesn't follow the policy, what should be done? In my > opinion, everyone SHOULD follow the policy, but if they don't the > community should be lenient, either doing nothing or giving gentle > reminders that the policy exists--until the person causes a problem with > their edits. At that point, the community should start holding the > person to a higher standard and insisting they follow the policy. If > someone who has caused problems before continues to not follow the > policy, then the community should bring the issue to the DWG. > > That's my thougts, > --Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
