Polyglot, I don't think there is a substantial **real** problem in JOSM with the autofixes. And yes, I have worked with JOSM devs and was impressed at the speed of response.
The thing is - we have been discussing hypothetical issues so far, not the real ones. And hypothetically, allowing a simple way for users to review one specific change on one object and click save is dangerous, because some hypothetical individual might not pay attention and go clicking trigger happy -- in other words we don't trust our users to be diligent. And so is **hypothetically** dangerous the JOSM's autofix feature, especially because in JOSM, unilke the new tool, it is possible to click "fix" without actually seeing what was changed. On the other hand, JOSM's autofix has been around for a long time, thus validating its own existence by trial rather than by philosophy - or at least showing that for those cases, the number of errors is so small, they don't surface to a major community attention. And that's the fundamental problem - we are worried about things that might happen, at the expense of ignoring significant number of existing data issues. But I think this is fairly normal - after all, we are usually more comfortable with a well understood existing problem than with a potential unknown harm. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > If there would be real problems with autofixes in JOSM, it's easy to > report those as a bugs or enhancement requests. JOSM's issue tracker may be > antiquated, but it does work and JOSM's developers are very responsive. > > If JOSM users who apply these auto fixes would worsen the data, then they > would get remarks through their changeset messages. I'm convinced that if > there are real problems on that side, we would already know about them and > they would be fixed very fast. Most likely by disabling the fix button for > that particular validator warning. > > So if you find actual issues, please report them. > > Polyglot > > 2017-10-17 9:50 GMT+02:00 Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com>: > >> 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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
