On 05/01/17 12:23, mi...@groundtruth.in wrote:
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
... As Frederik said, better reporting and processing can benefit DWG.
This is something I want to spend time on.
I think that it's important that how we do this sort of thing as a
project is discussed in whatever public forums are available (and right
now the "most international" one we have is this talk list, alongside
the other widely-used international community forums for different
languages over at forum.osm.org such as the DE and RU forums there).
Your "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports..." post
above may have been something of a dog-whistle response to Frederik's
post, but when I read things that talk about "the current revert regime"
and say "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports" and
"well documented and visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to
stop doing what you are currently doing in the way that you are doing
it", and want to understand why.
I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather
than the board (and yes, there will obviously be as many different views
as there are OSM mappers). If "the communication I've seen from
community members making reverts has left a lot of rough feelings" then
let's talk about it (for a start; which particular actions are we
talking about? Was the data that was removed added when it shouldn't
have been (for e.g. license reasons) and are we just talking about the
tone of the conversation, or something else?
Activities such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44923663 (to
take an example revert action from me yesterday) are going to become
more common as more people use OSM. In this case the sequence of events
was detect the problem, revert the vandalism, block the user and request
that an admin delete the account (which was created just for that
purpose). I'd argue that those actions (apart from block the user)
should be able to be carried out by anyone familiar enough with OSM to
recognise the problem, and we should actually encourage everyone in that
position to do so - providing that they can recognise the difference
between obvious vandalism (as happened here) and a business owner unable
to get the hang of editing and renaming something nearby by mistake. I
don't think that "a well documented and visible plan" would help here,
unless that plan said "if you see something wrong, please take
appropriate action to fix it" (which I've always thought was the 0th
rule of OSM anyway). Anything too bureaucratic would just slow down the
fixing of problems.
There are lots of interested parties in OSM - all the way from
individuals like me who 8 years ago were just looking for somewhere to
store stuff from an old GPS (a route of footpaths and villages across
Wales, as it happens) up through large non-profit and for-profit
corporations, all of whom contribute greatly to the OSM ecosystem. On a
personal note with the DWG I've found that the large organisations can
generally look after themselves, and there's a role for standing up for
the "little guy", whether it's a new mapper in an established community
or (as in the SADR case upthread) an attempt to remove a country - for
some definition of country - from the map. It's important that as a
community we talk to each other and listen to what everyone else has to
say, especially when (as in the "wikidata" case) everyone has the best
interests of the project at heart, just different visions of what those
best interests are.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
