Well, you kind of can fix one with the other - by introducing a better tool and disabling some of the autofixes in JOSM (very easy to do). A more complex approach would clearly require a separate topic(s) and a substantial dev involvement.
P.S. No, https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ doesn't have any real data (it shows maps from live servers, but editing shows just a few objects). On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> wrote: > I get your point, especially regarding the appliance of the JOSM > fix-button as a "by-the-way" fixing. > > Though, you can't fix possible issues with of one tool by introducing > another tool. People will not stop using (that feature of) JOSM. That is > why I think, if you think you detected a problematic issue there in that > editor, it should be discussed in a separate topic. > > On 17/10/2017 00:57, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > > 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk