2016-07-14 14:00 GMT+02:00 Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net>: > Éric Gillet wrote: > > That would be slightly faster to execute than the first approach I was > > suggesting, but then how would you prove that you checked every > > and all features ? > > Well, the best way to prove that you checked everything is not to fuck > things up, which of course you won't, because you've checked everything. > > If you fuck things up (for example, by changing name=McDonalds to > name=McDonald's on an independent restaurant that is actually called > McDonalds), then by definition you haven't checked sufficiently, have you? >
Oh, I thought you talked about checking peripheral data such as the position of the nodes as mentionned by Frederik Ramm. Of course it should be the responsibility of the changeset maker to lessen the errors introduced, just like any mapper really. However I'd believe that there is (in Europe for the example's sake) a very low number of restaurant really named McDonalds and not part of the franchise. So if the changeset correct 300 restaurants but 2 are "damaged" by the automated edit, would the edit be bad enough to be reverted or not be done in the first place ?
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
