Michael, I can only judge by my own experience adding validation autofix rules - I added a number of Wikipedia tag auto cleanups to JOSM, and they were reviewed by one or two JOSM developers and merged, probably because they were deemed benign. I don't know about the other rules, but I suspect many of them also went this route. Should have they been discussed more widely? I don't know, but that question is complicated, just like "what is a local community?" question. What a few devs may see as benign, others may say needs a discussion, right?
Mass editing is a different matter. We consider mass editing when one person goes out to fix something everywhere in the world. But when we provide a tool that automatically fixes something that you are looking at, we don't view it as such. Or at least we don't view it when it happens as part of JOSM, but we do when it happens in my new tool. Of course there is an important difference - JOSM doesn't guide you towards those cases. I think massive "by-the-way" fixing is far worse than the targeted fix of a single issue. When you want to fix a single issue in many places, you become a subject matter expert. You know all about that change, how it interacts with other tags, what to watch out for, how to handle bad values, etc. For example, when fixing wikipedia tags, you would see the types of mistakes people make, wrong prefixes people use, incorrect url encodings, hash tags in urls, incorrect multiple values, ... . When you simply click "fix" because JOSM validator tells you it can fix it automatically, you don't have that knowledge, so it effectively becomes a distributed mechanical edit without the "reject" capability. My tool tries to address this - to build domain experts in a narrow field, and let those experts review changes one by one. I do not discount the value of local knowledge, but it is not a panacea - you must be both to make intelligent choices, and in some cases, the domain knowledge is more important than the knowledge of a specific locale. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Michael Reichert <osm...@michreichert.de> wrote: > Hi Yuri, > > Am 16.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan: > > Rory, most of those queries were copied from the current JOSM validator > > autofixes. I don't think they were discussed, but they might have been > > mass applied without much thought by all sorts of editors. > > Could you please give examples for (a) the mass appliance of these rules > and (b) rules which have not been discussed but should have been discussed? > > There are two ways to use the tool - you can write your own query, run > it, > > and fix whatever it is you want to fix. That's the power user mode - > > anything goes, no different from JOSM or Level0. And there is another > one - > > where you go to osm wiki, read the instructions, find the task you may > want > > to work on, and go at it. The community reviews wiki content, tags > > different pages with different explanation or warning boxes, etc. The > > discussion could still be on the forum, or here, or in IRC, .... > > Just for future readers: IRC and Telegram channels are no replacement > for a mailing list or a forum with a public readable archive where you > can look up the discussions years later. > > Best regards > > Michael > > > > -- > Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten > ausgenommen) > I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
