I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at least as a hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits is and how it has grown 2) how many mappers have actually given up based upon this? My guess is that instead of coming up with a global solution, this could be left to the local communities to decide. For example, where I live (USA) there does not seem to be as much resistance to automated edits to make such a change desirable / necessary. The effect of introducing a new tagging requirement for, or even entirely separating out automated edits into a different database, may have a different (or even an opposite) effect in communities that look more favorably upon these types of edits. Martijn
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > On Monday 02 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in > > the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the > > planet file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to > > externalize the bot-tags. But how would you link one db to the other? > > If people don't see those tags (or only by request), their edits will > > erode the information in this external db (e.g. by splitting ways, > > deleting and redrawing parts, combining ways, etc.). What about > > versions, will there be different versions of the same object in the > > main db and this bot db? Is this a serious suggestion or just another > > way of saying there are too many automated activities going on? > > It is a serious idea although i don't seriously expect this to be > implemented any time soon. Less for technical reasons as you mentioned > but for social reasons. A huge part of the interest in making bot > edits stems from the idea to have the OSM community as cheap labour to > clean up after the bots and if you remove that incentive a lot of > motivation for making bot edits vanishes. > > Linking a separate bot editing database to the main OSM database is not > that difficult in principle as long as we are only talking about tag > modifications on the bot side. You would simply have a separate and > separately versioned 'bot tags' object for every object that has bot > tags. Of course if bots should also be able to make geometry edits you > would need rules for that - like bots may only edit geometries that > have no tag starting with something other than 'bot:' and that are not > member of a way or relation with tags other than 'bot:*'. This would > then essentially mean any geometry edits by bots stay within the bot > database which would make things easier (you would have a 'bot tags' > table plus supplemental bot only geometries tables). > > That is of course all theoretical. The more likely scenarios what will > happen if bot editing activities spread even further are probably > > a) That more and more craft mappers get fed up with bots messing with > their work and manual editing activity declines overall -> OSM transits > into a primarily bot maintained database. > b) The craft mappers get fed up with the bots and decide to separate out > their work instead of that of the bots in form of some protection > (could be as simple as adding a 'bot=no' tag to features allowing > mappers to indicate 'bots may not touch this object i have just > mapped'). > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
