> 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
