2018-01-12 17:01 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de>: > I agree. Right now, messages and comments sent via OSM channels tend to > be written by humans for a specific individual recipient, which gives > them a very good signal-to-noise ratio.
Interesting discussion to me because I'm working on a tool that enhances onosm.org and generates OSM notes and messages to inbox when an OSM object has been modified. I think it should be allowed to send auto-generated messages to OSM channels as long as it's fair use or if one can opt-out (in case of "personal" comments). > Subjectively, I also tend to find it a bit off-putting when canned > messages try to imitate human writing. Compared to obviously automated I would even go further by refering to policies about automated reply mails and/or chat bots. I can't find an authoritative source but I think there's at least a netiquette saying that communications to humans generated from machines should start by declaring it's a message from a machine. In this case my reaction also was that "I reviewed..." is misleading. I would propose s'thing like the following: ... Hello! This is a comment generated by #OSMCha: #REVIEWED_GOOD Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. ... If the reviewer can edit the text before it's being send by OSMCha (under the name of the user), then it's a kind of mixed "authorship" and yet another case. :Stefan [0]: https://github.com/mapbox/osmcha-frontend/issues/248 2018-01-12 17:01 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de>: > On 12.01.2018 15:39, Andy Townsend wrote: >> More seriously, any automatic use of OSM messages is problematical >> because it devalues the messages that we want people to actually read - >> the ones that are composed by and sent be a human, and have actual >> useful information in them > > I agree. Right now, messages and comments sent via OSM channels tend to > be written by humans for a specific individual recipient, which gives > them a very good signal-to-noise ratio. I enjoy that a lot and would > like to keep things that way. > > Subjectively, I also tend to find it a bit off-putting when canned > messages try to imitate human writing. Compared to obviously automated > messages ("your changeset was reviewed by user X"), they can feel > somewhat dishonest. I accept that people will feel differently about > this, though. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
