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 mapping. > > *Three)* The fixme system is not self-cleaning. Certain conditions result > in fixme tags that are unlikely to be acted on. There are some 1.3 million > open fixme tagged items, more than half from mechanical tagging. > > *Four)* In some cases the fixme tags happen to be associated with poor > quality imports. But this is not universal: some poor data has fixme tags, > other poor data does not.
+1 on all that, except that 4) is barely relevant. If an import is so bad that it needs to be undone, I really hope that the presence of a fixme tag is not the only way to detect said import. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > How about a two step process: > > *Step One ) * People who wish to delete a particular import look through > the FIXME tagged items, and propose specific deletions. For example > there's a bus stop import that looks to be of bad quality. If that data is > removed, the fixme tag will go with it. Problem solved. *Make a specific > proposal showing why the fixme tag is needed in order to clean the data.* Fair enough, but note that the problem being solved is the bad import, not the distracting fixme tags. > *Step Two ) *Remaining fixme values with a count above 10000 are > reviewed. If they are deemed to add value, or if they come from > many hand mapping efforts, they stay. The rest are mechanically trimmed. The usual "find a frequently-used tag that ought to be deleted an maybe its associated data fixed" process then. Not really specific to fixme tags, until you point out a particular fixme value that deserves the treatment. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk