On 3/23/19 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Mar 23, 2019, 9:59 AM by si...@poole.ch:
... Producing false updates (aka no real content) just obscures
that fact and makes it more difficult to determine which areas
need to be revisted.
It seems to me as not a real problem. There are many, many different
indicators of such places
and automatic edits are suitable to remove only very small part of them.
It's a real problem, for a couple of reasons - one is that "this object
might be out of date" warnings in e.g. Vespucci won't trigger, and the
other is that by definition automated edits don't look to see if the
object being edited was sensible. "Not sensible"might mean "a shop in
the middle of the sea", "a peak at the bottom of a quarry" or "an
unfeasible park added for Pokemon purposes" (perhaps one that covers an
obviously residential area).
With a DWG hat on it falls to me more than most to remove unfeasible
data, and that's much harder to do if someone has been "correcting" it
in the mean time.
In the specific case of "osmarender:nameDirection" using "natural
wastage" by deleting when next edited sounds a better way to do it. In
the case of _actually misleading data_ (like the results of a crap
import) then undoing the crap import obviously does make sense, and the
"post offices in the desert" in the US surely falls into that category.
Whether it's better to undo via revert, something like Maproulette or
something like Streetcomplete will depend on the nature of the
individual problem.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
