Christoph, thanks for clarifying. I should have been a bit more careful with that word. Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not authoritative for deprecation, than what is? "Community consensus that something is not to be used" has to be documented somewhere, right?
Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits *Automated edits* and *semi-automated edits* (sometimes called *mechanical edits*) are changes made to OpenStreetMap content with no or very limited human oversight, including those made by bots <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bot>, algorithmic processes, imports <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines> and also major changes made using general-purpose map editing tools such as JOSM <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM>. This differs from your own definition. The wiki definition does not discuss which features are being edited, or how I pick what to edit. It concentrates on the oversight - if I oversee each change one by one, and pay attention to it, by the above definition it is not an automated, nor a mechanical edit. A bot is an automated edit. Loading things into JOSM, and renaming 100 instances of tag "foo" into "bar" is a semi automated (mechanical) edit, because both lack oversight for each change. JD, The whole layer=0 conversation started with this message: I have copied some of the JOSM & deprecation autofixes as Sophox tasks > (quick fixes page). *Which of them would be good for the first review? *It > should probably be more obvious, like replacing identical > maxspeed:forward+maxspeed:backward with maxspeed tag, or removing > layer=0, etc. > > As you can see, it was a call for a balanced discussion on what would be good to fix, in a way Map Roulette and other fixing tools do it. Instead, we are now discussing if layer=0 and semantics. I agree that using words correctly is paramount to understanding each other, but if we target one example, and blow it into multiple messages, it helps no one. > I only think I will print Frederick's mails, and regularly read them again > and again. > Frederick's mail have been very passionate, and they would be great for uniting people for a cause, but I don't think they were as productive or consensus reaching as some other emails. Vilifying your opponent does not help the discussion - we are talking about ideas and tools, not persons. Otherwise we end up with Facebook's opinion bubble, where both sides sit in their own hall of mirrors, and don't try to reach any mutual understanding. > I will not answer anymore to this thread. It feels too much like a > scientific paper submission: If you answer to every objection, even > sometimes with halt-truth, there will come a time when there is no more to > say. > Using a word with a slightly different meaning is not the same as a half-truth. Half-truth implies a lie. If you think I have lied or mislead, say so, and explain where. Otherwise, this is baseless accusations.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
