> What might help here is to get details from the new mapper concerned of 
> how they felt that they needed to merge nodes or ways.  

I use changeset discussions a fair bit, partly because they end up right
in the new mapper's inbox, and that provides a link to an outside view
of the new mapper's changes. I always wish it was more obvious how to
explore the history of the related nodes and ways and see the editors of
related changesets from the changeset landing page, but at least it's
all there in the links, at least in theory.

Ideally a calm discussion leads to someone engaging a bit more and
fixing the problem themselves, though more often it's a polite prelude
to a future reversion :/

> > * not telling the user about the importance of all tags, even unknown to
> > the software and allowing user to communicate with user of the last
> > change of the object
> > ... So far, I try to keep calm and rather save my changes and upload them
> > later after solving conflicts instead of starting an edit war by
> > reverting or uploading older versions but I spend more time with
> > communication and investigating problems than actually mapping 

On the one hand I'm sorry to hear that communicating and fixing is a
distraction from mapping for you, on the other you're starting to sound
like a candidate member of the DWG ;) Maybe consider it, validating an
activity you're pursuing anyway...


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Reply via email to