subject:"Re\: \[OSM\-talk\] proposed mechanical edit \- moving FIXME=\* to fixme=\*"

3. Lipiec 2018 21:53 od f...@zz.de :


> IMHO fixing problems in the data always start with fixing the cause
> why they are added in the first place. Otherwise you fix the current
> state but errors start beeing added the minute you think you are "done".
>




That is one of motivation for this edit. Mappers learn by (among other

methods) by looking at  currently mapped objects.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Maarten Deen


On 2018-07-03 22:07, Tobias Knerr wrote:

On 03.07.2018 10:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:



Software should be able to deal with both.


In my opinion, software should not _need_ to deal with both. Working
around easily fixed database quality issues is a waste of time.


Good softwaredesign dictates "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal 
in what you accept from others". Calling that a waste of time is IMHO 
not a good standpoint.
Especially since in this case you do not fix anything. As said many 
times, anyone can add a FIXME tag to the data and then you would again 
overlook it. Until the next automated edit comes around and "fixes" the 
FIXME tags.


Regards,
Maarten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Tobias Knerr

On 03.07.2018 10:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Don't forget that new FIXMEs will continue to appear all the time.

They will, but at a lower rate. Mappers often look at existing tagging
to find out how things should be tagged. This is further reinforced by
tools such as JOSM's autocompletion. Thus, I believe the current dataset
should always be as.clean as possible in order to set a good example.

Mostly eliminating the FIXME spelling now (instead of waiting for it to
disappear naturally over the next decade) will also allow us to simplify
the wiki documentation a little bit, get rid of special cases in tools
and so on. That may only be a small benefit, but it's the sum of all
these small exceptions, duplications and special cases that make
learning the OSM data model unnecessarily hard for mappers and data
consumers alike.

> Software should be able to deal with both.

In my opinion, software should not _need_ to deal with both. Working
around easily fixed database quality issues is a waste of time.
Especially when there's even a volunteer eager to fix these quality issues!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 07:42:16PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> fixme tag is a standard way to mark fixmes.
> Editors wishing to finish mapping in their area would (directly or
> indirectly, for example using JOSM) look through objects tagged with
> fixme tags.
> 
> FIXME tag is an unexpected way to mark fixmes, retagging this duplicate to
> fixme key would improve tagging without any information loss.
> 
> It would make development of QA tools easier as authors would not need to
> discover and implement support for this duplicated key.

IMHO fixing problems in the data always start with fixing the cause
why they are added in the first place. Otherwise you fix the current
state but errors start beeing added the minute you think you are "done".

For the case problem here i dont think a mechanical edit is advised.

We have at least 3 ways - fixme=* FIXME=* and note=fixme *.

When you count in all the case variations like:
[Ff][Ii][Xx][Mm][Ee]= and note=[Ff][Ii][Xx][Mm][Ee] *

You are in the hundrets. Just fixing FIXME to fixme is just
a small fraction of the issue.

Better fix data consumers to use strncasecmp and not strncmp.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*


Hi

On 03/07/2018 13:27, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 03.07.2018 14:21, Dave F wrote:
it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, 
thus not spoiling the history


There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it 
will still be recorded in the history..


 and makes an analysis for old objects significantly difficult.


All the history is still there*

* Actually I'm unsure if that's strictly true. Potlatch often looses 
history when temporarily splitting ways & then rejoining them. Unsure if 
the other editors do similarly.




There is no fear, there are long-standing rules that have reasons.


Mateusz is following those rules. Whenever a bulk edit is suggested some 
contributors go on a bit a wobble, with remarks akin to thinking the sky 
will fall on their heads.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*




On 03/07/2018 12:33, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 03.07.2018 12:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same 
meaning > I hoped that that in this case there will be no controversy 
at all and this minor duplication


On 03.07.2018 12:52, Dave F wrote:
> All the editors need to be checked to see if they're adding FIXME as 
default.


Yes, thus the logical consequence is that tickets are opened with the 
major editors,
to include that in the validators, and remind the users to fix the 
underlying issue.
When the object is edited without removing the fixme/FIXME, the 
validator could lowercase it while saving the object anyway.


Great, but why not fix the existing in the database at the same time.
Analogy: When a waterpipe bursts, you fix the pipe to prevent further 
flooding, but you *also* mop up the water on the floor.




This process was done with other tags that were found unnecessary, 
such as _created_by_ on objects, and very successful without bloating 
the history.


Created_by is different. It was added mechanically by editors, not 
users. Within entities it's a deprecated tag. Fixme is still a current, 
relevant, user added tag. (Saying that, I still think Created_by should 
be bulk removed)


DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Lester Caine


On 03/07/18 13:21, Dave F wrote:
Removes duplicated, reduces confusion, easier to search. A good Spring 
clean improves the database.


I really think this fear of bulk edits has gone too far.


I would probably ask just how many of the tags you think are duplicated?

The point here is that there is no NEED for this edit, and it basically 
does nothing to improve the database. It simply hides this block of tags 
within the later larger bulk of 'fixme', when as has been said, if these 
have been around for so long they should be addressed.


Miss-spelt tags being bulk edited is one thing, but 'FIXME' is clean and 
changing them just because you can adds nothing to the data. Get on an 
deal with them to remove them all together is the right tack ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Andy Townsend


On 03/07/2018 11:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
3. Lipiec 2018 12:26 od t.pfei...@computer.org 
:


 > Removing the FIXME tag reduces the learning curve for map editors.
What specific skill is to be learned here?


Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same 
meaning.




Not exactly - when I wrote https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Notes01 I 
specifically looked for "fixme" and not "FIXME" deliberately because I 
was specifically looking for entries that were tagged "fixme" and wanted 
to avoid older "can someone please map stuff here" entries such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/768440770 .  Certainly in the areas I 
map in you tend to get different sorts of "fixme" information in each 
(though there's substantial overlap of course), not least because of the 
earlier popularity of FIXME as has been mentioned elsewhere.


That said, compared to most "I think I can fix the tags in OSM" 
mechanical edits the impact is trivial.  The biggest change I'd likely 
see would be having to wade through a tiny bit more rubbish to get to 
stuff I can usefully fix (whenever I'm anywhere with a Garmin I'll have 
a file of local OSM notes and fixmes in it).  Of course, it wouldn't 
prevent people adding FIXME tags in the future.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*


On 03.07.2018 14:21, Dave F wrote:

it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus not 
spoiling the history


There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it will still be recorded in the 
history..


It is a major difference! Doing the mechanical edit touches the last_edited for _all_ objects, as 
pointed out by Michael, and makes an analysis for old objects significantly difficult. Doing it 
individually _while doing other edits on the object_ touches the history for an intended improvement 
of content, not some unimportant lowercasing.


Removes duplicated, reduces confusion, easier to search. 


Cannot confirm any of those from my perspective.
Age of the object is much more difficult to search, while ignoring the 
upper/lowercase is easy.


A good Spring clean improves the database.


Spring is over, however the database is improved all seasons by individual 
edits.


I really think this fear of bulk edits has gone too far.


There is no fear, there are long-standing rules that have reasons.

tom

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*




On 03/07/2018 12:35, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 03.07.2018 13:22, Dave F wrote:

Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than 
individually? Doing it one by one still updates the last_modified 
attribute.


it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, 
thus not spoiling the history


There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it will 
still be recorded in the history..



with unnecessary bulk edits that do not improve the data themselves.


Removes duplicated, reduces confusion, easier to search. A good Spring 
clean improves the database.


I really think this fear of bulk edits has gone too far.

DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*


Hi Maarten

On 03/07/2018 10:38, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl:


What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future?


Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by
edits.


Then the proposed mechanical edit is useless. 


It will improve the quality of the database

It will have to be repeated periodically, 


Probably, but.the database is *always* being updated repeatedly so no 
real hardship.



and I don't think that should be how we do QC for this problem.
If this is a problem, it needs to be fixed at the root (change the API 
to accept lowercase keys only or change every key to lowercase on 
upload) and then corrected (this proposed mechanical edit).


Yes; & fixed in editors.

Cheers
DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*


On 03.07.2018 13:22, Dave F wrote:

Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than individually? Doing it one by one 
still updates the last_modified attribute.


it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus not spoiling the history 
with unnecessary bulk edits that do not improve the data themselves.


tom

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*


On 03.07.2018 12:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same meaning > 
I hoped that that in this case there will be no controversy at all and this minor 
duplication


On 03.07.2018 12:52, Dave F wrote:
> All the editors need to be checked to see if they're adding FIXME as default.

Yes, thus the logical consequence is that tickets are opened with the major 
editors,
to include that in the validators, and remind the users to fix the underlying 
issue.
When the object is edited without removing the fixme/FIXME, the validator could lowercase it while 
saving the object anyway.


This process was done with other tags that were found unnecessary, such as _created_by_ on objects, 
and very successful without bloating the history.


tom

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*


Hi Michael...

On 03/07/2018 00:23, Michael Reichert wrote:

Hi Mateusz,

Am 02.07.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:

Please comment - especially if there are any problems with this idea.
Please also comment if you support this edit, in case of no response
at all edit will not be made as there would be no evidence that
this idea is supported.

There are 177,152 FIXME and 1,216,043 fixme according to Taginfo. I did
not have a closer look on the average age of FIXMEs and fixmes.

What's the benefit in this mechanical edit? It just sets the
last_modified attribute to a recent date and data consumers, mappers and
QA tools get the impression that the object is not old.


This is not a valid reason to not update: 'tagging incorrectly to suit 
the validator/renderer...' etc



FIXME should make alarm bells ring in validator tools because its key
only contains uppercase characters.


Editors should have that alarm to prevent them being added in the first 
place.



If you want to search for uses of FIXME, use the OSM Inspector. It
supports FIXME case-insensitive for about ten years now (even our new
C++ implementation does). It does not matter if you write FiXmE,
or FixmE. Btw, todo=* (lower case only) is also supported.


Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than 
individually? Doing it one by one still updates the last_modified 
attribute.



DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi
You beat me to it!
I haven't read the whole thread.

I came across this irritating anomaly last week & thought it would be
good to update.

That there are entities with both variations indicates a problem within
the database & is not a valid reason to not amend.

All the editors need to be checked to see if they're adding FIXME as
default.

DaveF

On 02/07/2018 18:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

fixme tag is a standard way to mark fixmes.
Editors wishing to finish mapping in their area would (directly or
indirectly, for example using JOSM) look through objects tagged with
fixme tags.

FIXME tag is an unexpected way to mark fixmes, retagging this duplicate to
fixme key would improve tagging without any information loss.

It would make development of QA tools easier as authors would not need to
discover and implement support for this duplicated key.

Between X and Y objects are expected to be edited. See
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/FIXME#map for a
geographic distribution.

Changeset would be split into small areas to avoid continent-sized
bounding boxes. As this tag may be on extremely large objects (for
example relations representing long routes) it may be unavoidable to
make some edits with very large bounding boxes.

For documentation page see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/moving_FIXME_to_fixme
For documentation of my previous proposals (including both proposals
that failed to be approved and approved ones) see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account

Please comment - especially if there are any problems with this idea.
Please also comment if you support this edit, in case of no response
at all edit will not be made as there would be no evidence that
this idea is supported.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 12:26 od t.pfei...@computer.org :

>  > Removing the FIXME tag reduces the learning curve for map editors. 
> What specific skill is to be learned here?




Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same meaning.



> On 03.07.2018 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> - removes common duplicate confusing people
>
> I'm getting the impression that we cannot find agreements on more important 
> confusions (grass and forest landuse/landcover for example), so we start 
> looking at such decorative issues?
>




I hoped that that in this case there will be no controversy at all and this 
minor duplication

(one of many) can be eliminated without any XXL sized discussions.





 


> Fully agree. As the wiki page says: "This is not a tag for robots nor for any 
> automated edits" - that should apply to both, the problem the individual 
> fixme/FIXME marks, and the tag itself.
>




It is reminder that this tag should not be added by bot (fixme="opening hours 
missings").




I would not interpret it as 100% ban on any automated editing that is related 
to fixme tags.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*


On 03.07.2018 11:48, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

see http://taghistory.raifer.tech
It [FIXME] was quickly growing up to 2013, slowed later and and since 2017 
usage is decreasing.


Fine, so let it die peacefully.

Interestingly, 'FIXME' behaves more naturally, while 'fixme' shows a lot of 
import activities.
Quite visible if you add first 'FIXME' than 'fixme' to http://taghistory.raifer.tech/, so you see 
the latter in the zoom for the former. (hit 'reset zoom' to change the ceiling then).


tom

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 04:33, Jason Remillard wrote:> ... and I was quite surprised to find that FIXME> (an 
invalid key) was so prevalent in the database.

Who declared the uppercase version invalid? Where is the discussion to 
deprecate it?

The English fixme wiki page still declares "Alternate forms include FIXME=*"

Removing the FIXME tag reduces the learning curve for map editors. 

What specific skill is to be learned here?

> All of the editors have single-click access to the full history of the object, changes to the 
last modified time or last modified user isn't that big a deal for experienced editors.

To check the object history is something the new user learns later, so first she sees an object 
touched recently by an automated tool, and trusts its correctness.

On 03.07.2018 06:12, Yves wrote:
> I second Tom and Mikael, maybe a kind of rédaction to keep the date could be 
done? Not sure it's
> worth the effort though.

Thanks, but the effort would be even larger than a bot edit; and I agree with you and Fred that its 
not worth it.

On 03.07.2018 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> - removes common duplicate confusing people

I'm getting the impression that we cannot find agreements on more important confusions (grass and 
forest landuse/landcover for example), so we start looking at such decorative issues?

On 03.07.2018 10:12, Ed Loach wrote:
> ... FIXME pre-dates the fixme wiki proposal (if you dig out the proposal you'll see a discussion 
on the talk page about FIXME vs fixme when FIXME was still in the majority if you excluded an import 
which added 140,000 fixme entries) - indeed I didn’t even know there was a wiki proposal. The 
discussion on that wiki talk page decided it didn’t really matter about the case if I recall 
rightly, or this change would have been done years ago.

Ed, your analysis is correct, and probably people used the 'shouting' uppercase for FIXME so it 
jumps into the eye of the next editor more easily.

On 03.07.2018 10:56, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 03/07/18 09:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Don't forget that new FIXMEs will continue to appear all the time.
>> Software should be able to deal with both.
>
> I'm with you on this Frederik. The correct fix for a 'FIXME' tag is to deal 
with it or remove it
> completely if no longer valid, and adding extra change events to 'fixme' only gets in the way of 
that.

Fully agree. As the wiki page says: "This is not a tag for robots nor for any automated edits" - 
that should apply to both, the problem the individual fixme/FIXME marks, and the tag itself.

tom

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 11:38 od md...@xs4all.nl :

> On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> 3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od >> md...@xs4all.nl >> :
>>
>>> What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future?
>>
>> Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by
>> edits.
>
> Then the proposed mechanical edit is useless.

For start, see http://taghistory.raifer.tech  - 
FIXME tag usage is not growing at this moment.

It was quickly growing up to 2013, slowed later and and since 2017 usage is 
decreasing.

Also, going by that logic any improvements or changes are useless as may need 
to be repeated

in a future.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Maarten Deen


On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl:


What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future?


Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by
edits.


Then the proposed mechanical edit is useless. It will have to be 
repeated periodically, and I don't think that should be how we do QC for 
this problem.
If this is a problem, it needs to be fixed at the root (change the API 
to accept lowercase keys only or change every key to lowercase on 
upload) and then corrected (this proposed mechanical edit).


Regards,
Maarten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl :


> What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future?




Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by edits.


 

> What happens to the tools that read FIXME tags in the meanwhile?




Tools that process both FIXME and fixme will be unaffected. 


Tools that process solely FIXME are broken already.

 


> I just tried, JOSM hapilly accept fixme and FIXME on the same node.
> This edit has not much use when that remains the case.
>




JOSM allows to add any tags. For example one may add dhhs=487847dhh tag using 
JOSM.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Lester Caine


On 03/07/18 09:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:

On 02.07.2018 19:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

It would make development of QA tools easier as authors would not need to
discover and implement support for this duplicated key.

I think the downsides of such a large mechanical edit far outweigh the
advantages.

Don't forget that new FIXMEs will continue to appear all the time.

Software should be able to deal with both.


I'm with you on this Frederik. The correct fix for a 'FIXME' tag is to 
deal with it or remove it completely if no longer valid, and adding 
extra change events to 'fixme' only gets in the way of that.


IF there is a general consensus that some tags are no longer acceptable, 
then the first step is to fix the API to prevent their use? Once the 
source of the problem is eliminated THEN address the historic data.


Is there any case for not enforcing lowercase only tags? The fact that 
'FIXME' and 'fixme' can exist on the same node just seems wrong in ANY case?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread _ dikkeknodel

Ed wrote:

> though perhaps notes make more sense than hiding things in tags and instead 
> of changing case the proposal should be to extract the FIXME's to notes to 
> increase their visibility.

For me notes are often much less informative than fixme tags. Because the fixme 
tag is on the entity requiring fix, there is no discussion required about what 
entity is meant. Also, when the entity requiring fix is re-aligned by some 
mapper without handling the note, the descrepancy between the entity and the 
note make become bigger.

For me notes and fixmes are different things.
fixme is used between fellow mappers to indicate missing or incorrect data, 
like the endnode of a highway with fixme=continue is very clear that it 
requires a survey on where the highway goes
notes can be used by anybody on openstreetmap.org, and typically require more 
info.

Cheers,
dikkeknodel
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Maarten Deen


On 2018-07-03 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


Now that I know about existence of FIXME tag I can add support for it
in my tools at 1% of cost of going through mechanical edit.

The entire point is not to support may particular usecase, the point
is to save people in future from spending time on handling tag 
duplication.


What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future? Do you 
propose to redo this mechanical edit periodically? What happens to the 
tools that read FIXME tags in the meanwhile?


I can't find anything on case for the key, but general concensus is that 
it should be in lowercase (which makes sense), but IMHO tools should be 
liberal in what they accept as input, so I would always search case 
insensitive if I were to look for something.


IMHO before we do this edit (which in my eyes should be unneccessary), 
we should have concensus on the case of the FIXME tag in OSM (and indeed 
any tag) and have all editors adehere to that standard. I just tried, 
JOSM hapilly accept fixme and FIXME on the same node.

This edit has not much use when that remains the case.

Regards,
Maarten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 02.07.2018 19:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> It would make development of QA tools easier as authors would not need to
> discover and implement support for this duplicated key.

I think the downsides of such a large mechanical edit far outweigh the
advantages.

Don't forget that new FIXMEs will continue to appear all the time.

Software should be able to deal with both.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2018-07-03 Thread Ed Loach

Mateusz wrote:

> Also, OSM Inspector anyway is not useful at all for offline tag listing on 
> map 
> during survey, on a phone (my particular usecase).

Funnily enough I've added FIXME tags when out surveying with my phone 
(Vespucci). FIXME pre-dates the fixme wiki proposal (if you dig out the 
proposal you'll see a discussion on the talk page about FIXME vs fixme when 
FIXME was still in the majority if you excluded an import which added 140,000 
fixme entries) - indeed I didn’t even know there was a wiki proposal. The 
discussion on that wiki talk page decided it didn’t really matter about the 
case if I recall rightly, or this change would have been done years ago. If the 
edit does go ahead then I'll try and remember to use fixme, though perhaps 
notes make more sense than hiding things in tags and instead of changing case 
the proposal should be to extract the FIXME's to notes to increase their 
visibility.

Ed

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*