Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 20/07/2016 13:38, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Victor Grousset wrote: >> On 14/07/2016 17:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >>> The person proposing the automated edit isn't the best placed >>> person to weigh that up: they're already convinced of the desirability >>> of the edit (which is why they're

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Victor Grousset wrote: > On 14/07/2016 17:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > The person proposing the automated edit isn't the best placed > > person to weigh that up: they're already convinced of the desirability > > of the edit (which is why they're proposing it). > > The person already weighed

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 18/07/2016 15:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Il giorno 18 lug 2016, alle ore 00:01, tuxayo ha scritto: >> >> If the edit was discussed and approved, then if after the fact, damage >> that was considered acceptable is discovered. Or damage that doesn't >> question the

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

sent from a phone > Il giorno 18 lug 2016, alle ore 00:01, tuxayo ha scritto: > > If the edit was discussed and approved, then if after the fact, damage > that was considered acceptable is discovered. Or damage that doesn't > question the validity of the whole changeset

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 14/07/2016 11:14, Éric Gillet wrote: > tuxayo: >> A fourth approach to fix that would be to have a first automated edit >> changeset and then a manual fix changeset for the other errors. >> A variant would be to reverse the order: fix the other errors first when >> inspecting

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-14 18:03 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend : > but do always ask yourself if by "tidying up" you're actually removing > information from OSM, even if that information is "there is some doubt as > to whether the original mapper knew what they were doing". +1. A part of the

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 14/07/2016 16:19, Éric Gillet wrote: So if the changeset correct 300 restaurants but 2 are "damaged" by the automated edit, would the edit be bad enough to be reverted or not be done in the first place ? I'd revert it. It's essentially the same as the "trees" example upthread (where the

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Hi Eric, Am 14.07.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Éric Gillet: > However I'd believe that there is (in Europe for the example's sake) a very > low number of restaurant really named McDonalds and not part of the > franchise. So if the changeset correct 300 restaurants but 2 are "damaged" > by the automated

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Éric Gillet wrote: > However I'd believe that there is (in Europe for the example's sake) a > very low number of restaurant really named McDonalds and not part > of the franchise. So if the changeset correct 300 restaurants but 2 > are "damaged" by the automated edit, would the edit be bad

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-14 14:00 GMT+02:00 Richard Fairhurst : > Éric Gillet wrote: > > That would be slightly faster to execute than the first approach I was > > suggesting, but then how would you prove that you checked every > > and all features ? > > Well, the best way to prove that you

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 14/07/2016 13:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Éric Gillet wrote: That would be slightly faster to execute than the first approach I was suggesting, but then how would you prove that you checked every and all features ? Well, the best way to prove that you checked everything is not to fuck

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Éric Gillet wrote: > That would be slightly faster to execute than the first approach I was > suggesting, but then how would you prove that you checked every > and all features ? Well, the best way to prove that you checked everything is not to fuck things up, which of course you won't, because

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 7/14/2016 7:14 PM, Éric Gillet wrote: 2016-07-14 6:12 GMT+02:00 tuxayo >: On 13/07/2016 09:25, Éric Gillet wrote: > I will summarise what course of action I think would be appropriate to > follow : > > * It's not clear

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-14 6:12 GMT+02:00 tuxayo : > On 13/07/2016 09:25, Éric Gillet wrote: > > I will summarise what course of action I think would be appropriate to > > follow : > > > > * It's not clear whether AE CoC terms are rules or simply guidelines > > o As Frederik said,

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 13/07/2016 09:25, Éric Gillet wrote: > I will summarise what course of action I think would be appropriate to > follow : > > * It's not clear whether AE CoC terms are rules or simply guidelines > o As Frederik said, rules should be written well in order to have > the legitimacy

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-12 19:35 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend : > On 12/07/2016 17:29, Éric Gillet wrote: > > I've read through your posts in this thread, and while it's clear that you > have an issue with the way that things work now, I can't see what that > problem actually is. Can you provide

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-12 23:08 GMT-03:00 tuxayo : > On 12/07/2016 09:53, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> I would suggest to look at things more in terms of consistency - OSM is >> all about local knowledge and mappers mapping their day-to-day >> environment. It is inconsistent with this aim to

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 12/07/2016 09:53, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I would suggest to look at things more in terms of consistency - OSM is > all about local knowledge and mappers mapping their day-to-day > environment. It is inconsistent with this aim to allow others to mess > around in this local mapping

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 12/07/2016 17:29, Éric Gillet wrote: So at least one user should reach out to the contributor before involving the DWG ? That would be great but that's not currently the case in my experience. The vast majority of my DWG interactions with other OSM users are "if you see something

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-12 14:35 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > > On 07/12/2016 03:03 AM, tuxayo wrote: > > The questions is how legitimate are they. To know if we can enforce them > > strictly. > > Enforcing anything "strictly" is likely to cause problems. Rules can > only be enforced strictly

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Hi, On 07/12/2016 03:03 AM, tuxayo wrote: > The questions is how legitimate are they. To know if we can enforce them > strictly. Enforcing anything "strictly" is likely to cause problems. Rules can only be enforced strictly if they are so well written that any idiot can enforce them by simply

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On Tuesday 12 July 2016, tuxayo wrote: > > Remember OSM is largely a do-ocracy - those who put work into > > developing the rules have a significant influence on their content. > > This does not make them illegitimate. > > The questions is how legitimate are they. To know if we can enforce > them

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 10/07/2016 23:56, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Remember OSM is largely a do-ocracy - those who put work into developing > the rules have a significant influence on their content. This does not > make them illegitimate. The questions is how legitimate are they. To know if we can enforce them

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

[replying to the thread in general] I tend to be nervous about groups that are structurally like the DWG. However, when I look at what they've done over the years I've been involved, and the notion of the automated edits code, I have to say the DWG has seemed 100% reasonable and if anything

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On Monday 11 July 2016, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > DWG is a committee of the elected OSMF. If you don't like it, you can > vote for directors on OSMF who share your viewpoint, who can then > vote to instruct DWG accordingly. > > This is called representative democracy. The alternative is direct

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Éric Gillet wrote: > In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules : > - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment" The Code of Conduct is a document enforced and revised by DWG, with the intention of codifying long-standing principles in OSM (principally, "respect the

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Another thought: maybe it would be helpful to think of the DWG work as some kind of fire brigade rather than police. They do not work to enforce formal laws but are around in case something disruptive to normal mapping activities happens too severe for the individual mappers to deal with.

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Éric Gillet wrote: > Hello, > > OSM contributions must follow the Contributor Terms > ; these > therms are being shown to new users and they must explicitely accept them >

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Hi Michael, 2016-07-11 0:08 GMT+02:00 Michael Reichert : > Hi Éric, > > Am 10.07.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Éric Gillet: > > In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules : > >- Are not shown to new contributors > > It is shown to new contributors, not directly but they get

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Hi, On 07/11/2016 01:23 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > My main issue with the AEcoc is that it is nearly impossible to comply > with, especially the part that says that community consensus is > necessary (or rather, "said", because this requirement seems to have > been silently removed). Which

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 11 July 2016 at 01:08, Frederik Ramm wrote: > The automated edits code of conduct is there for a reason; had user > Test360 complied with it, then his edit would likely not have been > faulty My main issue with the AEcoc is that it is nearly impossible to comply with,

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 10 July 2016 at 23:26, Éric Gillet wrote: > What are your thoughts ? I fully agree with all your points. I think a wider community discussion on the current guidelines is necessary. -- Matthijs ___ talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Hi, On 07/10/2016 11:26 PM, Éric Gillet wrote: > However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG > : the Automated edits code of conduct This whole discussion seems to have its origin in this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27888534 Where - for the

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 10/07/2016 23:26, Éric Gillet wrote: > [...] > However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG > : the Automated edits code of conduct > (AECoC). > > In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Hi Éric, Am 10.07.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Éric Gillet: > OSM contributions must follow the Contributor Terms > ; these > therms are being shown to new users and they must explicitely accept them > before they can start contributing. > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On Sunday 10 July 2016, Éric Gillet wrote: > > In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules : > >- Are not shown to new contributors >- Are not accepted by new or existing contributors Maybe that is because they don't apply to the vast majority of contributors. You don't need to

Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

On 10.07.2016 23:26, Éric Gillet wrote: > If it were to, I think it should be put to an higher set of standards than > the changeset it aims to direct. For example it could be audited with an > RFC, then a vote, and finally being explicitely accepted by contributors. > > What are your thoughts ?

[OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Hello, OSM contributions must follow the Contributor Terms ; these therms are being shown to new users and they must explicitely accept them before they can start contributing. However, another distinct set of rules is also being