Hi, Perhaps I didn't express it clearly, but my interest was in the idea that certain. rather limited changelists could be flagged for moderation before they are put into main dataset. There will always be things that seem like they should be blocked, but are actually appropriate. In the interest of having the most accurate data, I'm not convinced this form of moderation can't have a role. As I understand it, the virtue of OSM is to allow anyone to contribute accurate, detailed local knowledge about the places they know about; however, there's no value in having junk in the database for even a moment, if it can be avoided. Place names are usually verifiable facts, even disputed place names. So you don't want the open nature of OSM to compromise accuracy, or a quest for accuracy to discourage people from contributing accurate information.
I said my peace; I suspect the OSM community is not culturally disposed to that form of moderation. So I will ask about a different approach. In my case, I've seen editing errors that affected motorway connectivity (not vandalism), that were made and corrected within a couple hours. Pretty good - except our planet file was in that two hour window. I want to avoid these errors, without getting caught in the errors of the next two hour window. I'm not sure if Mapbox or others use a process like this, but this is what I can imagine: PLANETcur is the current planet filePLANETprev is the last used planet fileCHANGEcur-prev is a comprehensive list of changelists between the two datasets A particular consumer of OSM data can automatically scan CHANGEcur-prev and/or PLANETcur for potentially troubling content, according to their own criteria. In their local copy, if they detect something they do not want to accept - offensive place names, incomplete topology - they can attempt to revert - in their local copy only! - recent changes that violate their criteria. They accept whatever mistakes their "reversion" algorithm makes. The identified "questionable changelists" can be submitted back to the OSM community to review and revert, but always by a human. My hope is that I am being completely unoriginal, and I can cobble together existing tools quickly. How unoriginal am I? I am looking over the osmcha.mapbox.com page, and saw reference to a utility called "osm-compare": https://github.com/mapbox/osm-compare/blob/master/comparators/README.md - which has an obscenity filter. If I understand this correctly, osm-compare flags changelists for review, osmcha.mapbox.com allows people to review the flagged datasets and reverse bad edits. Could someone define osm-compare filters that produce results that can be automatically pulled into a local copy? (If a changeset has been reviewed by a second person - can that information be provided). All I want is something that allows me to be a little bit more conservative in accepting edits, without requiring complex processes or large resource. A little insight would be appreciated. Thanks,Alan On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 7:52:46 AM PDT, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: osmcha (osmcha.mapbox.com) already does most of this. While detecting vandalism in general is difficult, edits like those in question are easy to detect and small in number. IMHO it really isn't an issue with openstreetmap in this case, as even with the delay (somebody reported the user in question instead of reverting and then reporting) in the specific case the vandalism was swiftly removed. The reason that this is being discussed at all is because of the edit resurfacing with a third party and having to be a) detected, b) reported, and c) fixed again. Yes what we know this was a glitch in the third parties workflow, but they are bound to happen and we shouldn't pretend given the large number of edits that any procedures put in place are going to be 100% effective, be it directly with OSM or by third parties. Simon Am 05.09.2018 um 16:23 schrieb Greg Troxel: > I tend to agree that automated systems are going to be not that useful. > > I tend to notice some things in my area, but it's hard to keep track. > > This makes me wonder about a tool that > > - lets people sign up to watch edits, in some area, or in general, > sort of like maproulette. Use some scoring system where new > mappers edits are more likely to be looked at by somebody, and > people who claim an area as theirs are more likely to get shown > edits there, or maybe let people get all edits in some bbox > > - lets people give a rating to a changeset, something like: > i) high priority for inspection by others > ii) worthy of being checked by a local > iii) probably ok > iv) definitely ok > > - presents things to multiple people > > - somehow uses a rater's own edit history to validate this (perhaps be > cautious about people with < 500 changesets, and very cautious < 50) > > > This is a slippery slope to a reputation system, but I think in terms of > culture, the fact that anybody can review is there already, and the > bright line is needing permission to change things, vs a more efficient > way of others looking over changes. > > > Unfortunately my editor crashed and I lost the source code :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
