On 25/02/2015 08:51, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 25.02.2015 02:58, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
It is apparent that a number of imports have left tens of thousands of
fixme notes that have a low chance of ever getting addressed. Pick your
favorite from the lists above: set␣better␣denotation is my mine.
brycenesbitt wrote
about mechanically reversing:
fixme=set␣better␣denotation
denotation=cluster
Agreed on this one.
And with 222k objects, that is a really big clean up.
-
--
sly, contact direct : sylvain /a\ letuffe o r g
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Sletuffe
--
View
Le 26.02.2015 19:25, Paul Johnson a écrit :
Now that we have an anointed notes system, how about an automated move to
notes, with the owner of the note being the person who originated the FIXME?
Please, no.
On http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-overview, [1] I prefer the
first
On 27 February 2015 at 14:30, JB jb...@mailoo.org wrote:
On http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-overview, I prefer the first
graph, showing how the notes db is already getting clustered
I find the page in fact a bit hard to read (but apart from that very
useful). What is the difference
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
I am still not sure I am following.
A number of the top fixme values came from a single user, import, or manual
(usually JOSM) edit.
The proposal is a (semi) mechanical delete to check bounds, other tagging
errors, then remove
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 25.02.2015 02:58, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
It is apparent that a number of imports have left tens of thousands of
fixme notes that have a low chance of ever getting addressed. Pick your
favorite from the lists
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:30 AM, JB jb...@mailoo.org wrote:
Le 26.02.2015 19:25, Paul Johnson a écrit :
Now that we have an anointed notes system, how about an automated move
to notes, with the owner of the note being the person who originated the
FIXME?
Please, no.
On
Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:10 AM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 25/02/2015 05:00, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Any fixme in wide use I'm not interested in deleting.
I'd strongly oppose the mechanical deletion of low volume fixme values.
On 2/26/2015 10:49 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
If the problem is in an area where there's no-one to survey, then so
what? Fixmes don't show up on any end-user (as opposed to mapping QA)
rendering, they don't mess up routing, they don't affect geocoding or
have any other negative consequences
I agree. In most cases, a FIXME should be left until someone on-site can
verify what is correct.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
On February
Now that we have an anointed notes system, how about an automated move to
notes, with the owner of the note being the person who originated the FIXME?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:38 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com
wrote:
I agree. In most cases, a FIXME should be left until someone
Here's an example semi-bulk FIXME cleanup just done. This was manual, not
script based:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29107328
Clearly this was a simple mistake (a JOSM user doing select all and
getting nodes in addition to the ways they wanted to target). The original
changeset was:
On 25.02.15 08:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think in many cases the proper action to perform on an object with
a FIXME tag that has a low chance of ever getting addressed is deletion.
-1
You can't really tell if the problem wasn't fixed of if it was fixed and the
user fixing it forgot to
On 26/02/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
*One)* We have a fixme system where human mappers are encouraged to pay
extra attention to particular areas or objects.
*Two) *There is an issue of mapper fatigue: each mapper will look at only
so many such tags in a lifetime of
On 26/02/2015, Andreas Labres l...@lab.at wrote:
On 25.02.15 08:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think in many cases the proper action to perform on an object with
a FIXME tag that has a low chance of ever getting addressed is deletion.
highway=service
access=private
surface=asphalt
On 26/02/2015 08:43, Andreas Labres wrote:
This confirmation of course could be automated: show the user the
object with the tags on some areal imagery background and she/he can decide
(in
most cases, I'd say).
No -- the aerial imagery could be out of date, and it may not be
possible to tell
I think that it may be a good idea to considering deleting fixmes that:
- were added by mechanical mass edit
- were added to existing objects
- are completely useless
- are not indicating low quality of data/tags
For example set␣better␣denotation is not fitting - it seems that in this
case
also
On 25/02/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
fixme=yes is an interesting one socially. It's a bit like
tiger:reviewed=no
Yes. I'm also willing to bet that in manny cases fixme=yes was added
by mistake, without the mapper understanding what it means.
If there's an obvious problem,
I think that it may be a good idea to considering automated deleting fixmes
that:
- were added by mechanical mass edit
- were added to existing objects
- are completely useless
- are not indicating low quality of data/tags
For example set␣better␣denotation is not fitting - it seems that in this
On 26/02/2015 18:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
Now that we have an anointed notes system, how about an automated
move to notes, with the owner of the note being the person who
originated the FIXME?
Personally I'd rather keep any FIXMEs on the objects that they relate to.
--
Steve
---
This email
To make this simpler, for now I propose to mechanically delete the tags:
fixme=stream␣attibutes␣missing
stream=fixme
From several stream imports in the USA. Does anyone have comment or
considerations for that proposal (beyond the usual mechanical edit policy)?
To make this simpler, for now I propose to mechanically delete the tags:
fixme=stream␣attibutes␣missing
stream=fixme
From several stream imports in the USA. Does anyone have comment or
considerations for that proposal (beyond the usual mechanical edit policy)?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Blake Girardot bgirar...@gmail.com wrote:
I am strongly in this camp. I have not seen any actual harm or problem
presented for 1.3 million fixme tags yet. But there is the potential for
problems if removed.
Even fixme=yes tags convey information: Someone felt
But mass-removing that import's fixmes
I meant : mass-removing the import's objects
--
sly, direct contact : sylv...@letuffe.org
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Sletuffe
-
--
sly, contact direct : sylvain /a\ letuffe o r g
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Sletuffe
--
On 25/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-02-25 11:07 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
* fixme=yes
Provides no information
-1, it indicates a certain overaverage probability of some (not further
specified) problem
It can also indicate a tagging
On 25/02/2015, sly (sylvain letuffe) lis...@letuffe.org wrote:
I do also agree with Frederic, imports of external data not conflated added
with some fixme=please fix my bad import by surveying it on the ground
should be remove alltogether. Good integration should be done at import time
and
On 25/02/2015, sly (sylvain letuffe) lis...@letuffe.org wrote:
On mercredi 25 février 2015, you wrote:
+1, in any case it seems more likely that the problems gets fixed with a
fixme tag than without.
-1
I do think this is is only true in a short term view.
Push that reasoning to the extrem,
brycenesbitt wrote
It's also possible to turn some of those like
could_be_dunes_or_beach into notes, rather than FIXME.
-1
Don't push dust under another carpet
-
--
sly, contact direct : sylvain /a\ letuffe o r g
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Sletuffe
--
View this message in
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:10 AM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 25/02/2015 05:00, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Any fixme in wide use I'm not interested in deleting.
I'd strongly oppose the mechanical deletion of low volume fixme values.
Mappers local to me often use individually
On 25/02/2015 17:23, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Hold on, you may have misunderstood.
Actually I think you've misunderstood:
You've said these are Junk Tags, and I think everyone has agreed with
you on that. However people have also pointed out that they are probably
attached to Junk Data.
This means
On 25/02/2015, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/02/2015 17:23, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Hold on, you may have misunderstood.
Actually I think you've misunderstood:
Being the thread starter, I doubt that Bryce has misunderstood the
point of the thread.
You've said these are
fixme=yes is an interesting one socially. It's a bit like tiger:reviewed=no
If there's an obvious problem, I might feel confident to fix the issue and
clear the tag out. But for most nodes I might be unsure what's wrong, or
not be confident I know 100% about the object. Thus the fixme=yes sits
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually I think you've misunderstood:
You've said these are Junk Tags, and I think everyone has agreed with
you on that. However people have also pointed out that they are probably
attached to Junk Data.
How
To me, fixme tags always come with the implied 'I don't know, it needs
surveying from a more knowledgeable local mapper' so I don't think a
widespread mechanical edit will help.
As others have said: What's the problem with these tags? As they're not
harming the database. How will deleting
I agree with Tordanik that automated addition of fixme=* tags to previously
existing objects (just like set better denotation on natural=tree) is
counter productive, and not only displays warning on JOSM, but make my days
on the ground worst as my osmand is showing non human asked corrections.
2015-02-25 11:07 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
How will removing any fixme tag make the actual _data_ in OSM better?
It'll just make it harder for people editing it to determine what is
good data and what isn't.
+1
I'm willing to believe that a particular fixme value
On mercredi 25 février 2015, you wrote:
+1, in any case it seems more likely that the problems gets fixed with a
fixme tag than without.
-1
I do think this is is only true in a short term view.
Push that reasoning to the extrem, should we add fixme=* tags for every QA
tool report, people will
On 25/02/2015 07:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think in many cases the proper action to perform on an object with
a FIXME tag that has a low chance of ever getting addressed is deletion.
+1
Though just as blind mechanical imports should not be done, so blind
mechanical deletes should also
Unsure how that will resolve any of the problems.
On 25/02/2015 05:02, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
It's also possible to turn some of those like
could_be_dunes_or_beach into notes, rather than FIXME.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 25/02/2015, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 25/02/2015 05:00, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Get rid:
fixme=check/adjust␣position␣and/or␣merge␣with␣existing␣stop␣if␣exists
fixme=type_of_palm
fixme=imported_to_be_checked
FIXME=stream␣attribute␣data␣missing
Keep:
fixme=continue
On 25.02.2015 02:58, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
It is apparent that a number of imports have left tens of thousands of
fixme notes that have a low chance of ever getting addressed. Pick your
favorite from the lists above: set␣better␣denotation is my mine.
That's from a mechanical edit that should
On 25/02/2015 05:00, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Any fixme in wide use I'm not interested in deleting.
I'd strongly oppose the mechanical deletion of low volume fixme
values. Mappers local to me often use individually worded fixmes
describing something that needs investigation. By definition
On 25/02/2015 07:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
+1 to all that.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi,
I think in many cases the proper action to perform on an object with
a FIXME tag that has a low chance of ever getting addressed is deletion.
For example, if something is tagged
fixme=check/adjust␣position␣and/or␣merge␣with␣existing␣stop␣if␣exists
then that's clearly a failed import
I'm opening a discussion about a potential mechanical edit to FIXME tags:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fixme#values
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/FIXME#values
It is apparent that a number of imports have left tens of thousands of
fixme notes that have a low chance of ever
Sounds like a great idea. My favorites to work on is dual␣carriageway
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/FIXME=dual%20carriageway
not␣dual␣carriageway
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/FIXME=not%20dual%20carriageway.
*Regards,*
*Hans*
*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
It's also possible to turn some of those like
could_be_dunes_or_beach into notes, rather than FIXME.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Any fixme in wide use I'm not interested in deleting.
Get rid:
fixme=check/adjust␣position␣and/or␣merge␣with␣existing␣stop␣if␣exists
fixme=type_of_palm
fixme=imported_to_be_checked
FIXME=stream␣attribute␣data␣missing
Keep:
fixme=continue
fixme=position
fixme=resurvey
fixme=dual_carriageway
48 matches
Mail list logo
