Mar 23, 2019, 6:17 PM by si...@poole.ch <mailto:si...@poole.ch>:
> > > > Am 23.03.2019 um 13:28 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > >> >> >> >> Mar 23, 2019, 1:04 PM by >> ajt1...@gmail.com <mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>> : >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/23/19 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mar 23, 2019, 9:59 AM by >>>> si...@poole.ch <mailto: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 object might be out of date" warnings in e.g. Vespucci won't 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 >>> >>> >> Is it really a problem? It is only heuristic and there was no place >> where I ever mapped that >> I had problem because I run out of obvious indicators that something >> needs to be fixed, resurveyed >> or remapped. >> > > Time since last edit is the only -non- heuristic measure of staleness in > OSM. There are other ways to determine this, but they are are an order > of magnitude more involved (essentially you need to retrieve prior > versions and start comparing tags and geometries). And I wasn't even > thinking specifically of Vespucci in this case (in principle for > Vespucci it could be worked around by setting a fake survey_date in a > mass edit). > > It is still heuristic. It is unable to distinguish between "it was all mapped 2 days ago" and "someone reverted vandalism two days ago" or "offset in area mapped from Bing was adjusted to known correct one". And anyway, any area that I encountered had more objects reported as worth resurveying than it was feasible to resurvey. > > And to repeat, I'm not against removing tags when they are really an > issue. For example last year we removed note tags from the locations of > the major car sharing operation in Switzerland, roughly a 1'000 objects, > because they indicated that the objects shouldn't be edited (originally > they were imported), > > I fully agree here. > but there is no need to do so just for superficial aesthetic reasons, > just as other normalisation for the sake of normalisation is contra > productive in an OSM context. > That is probably root of our disagreement. I consider edit changing area=yes massgis:IT_VALC=WS3 massgis:IT_VALDESC=WOODED SWAMP MIXED TREES massgis:OBJECTID=62053 massgis:PALIS_ID=0 massgis:POLY_CODE=3 massgis:SOURCE=DEP-WCP massgis:SOURCE_SCA=12000 massgis:WETCODE=16 natural=wetland source=DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) - April 2007 (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm>) wetland=swamp to natural=wetland massgis:OBJECTID=62053 massgis:IT_VALDESC=WOODED SWAMP MIXED TREES source=DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) - April 2007 (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/wetdep.htm>) wetland=swamp as valuable, helpful and useful cleanup of a bungled import (massgis:OBJECTID, massgis:IT_VALDESC may be also worth removing but I would not do it blindly). Or changing FIXME=whatever to fixme=whatever. >> I opened >> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17512 >> <https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17512>>> (if it will pass I will open >> equivalents >> for iD and Vespucci). >> >> > > You don't need to do anything separate for Vespucci, simply make a PR > against > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json > <https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json> > > Yes, I planned to open PR (like I did with iD in https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/6091 <https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/6091> ) and I had already bookmarked that file. If adding tags to list of discardable tags is preferred over mechanical edits I will start doing this, main goal of reducing pollution in lists of displayed tags is also achieved this way. I thought that mechanical edits would be preferable as it allows people to use this tag (mechanical edit will not block future additions, one can op-out from it etc) while discardable tags are much stronger effect. But if for some reasons (even if I disagree with them) using discardable tags is preferred I will happily use it. Opening issue for JOSM and making trivial PRs for Vespucci and iD is much, much easier than running a mechanical edit and prevents people from adding tag in future, so I will switch to this method for future proposals to eliminate utterly pointless tags.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
