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 umpteenth time - someone thought it was a good idea to replace landuse=forest with landuse=wood world-wide, without looking at individual cases and motivations. The user was contacted http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27656417 but insisted that his mass edit was generally ok (while acknowledging a small mistake regarding deciduous/broad-leved). His edits were then reverted. Because his edits stretched over several days and changesets, and because the changeset comments contained no hint at whether or not the particular changeset did contain this kind of un-discussed mechanical edits, the DWG member executing the revert - that was me - only did a cursory inspection and in doing so, reverted a few changesets that were *not* mechanical edits. (This was not the first time the user had been called out for ill-conceived mass edits; he first came to DWG's attention because a US mapper complained about http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27644435 which makes world-wide changes to some natural=water objects.) The user was unhappy, but my reaction was the verbal equivalent of a shrug; if you make a mechanical edit, refuse to concede that you made a mistake, and your edit isn't even clearly recognizable then you have to accept a little collateral damage. DWG has only a finite amount of time to deal with problems and while it would be great if we could sort through a problematic changeset or series of changeset and separate the good from the bad, sometimes the presence of enough bad stuff can lead to a wholesale revert. This whole changeset was about a year ago but recently I was contacted by one user, tuxayo, asking me to concede that mistakes were made handling that particular revert, and would I please answer the open questions raised by user Test360. I explained everything I wrote above, but apparently this was not sufficient, as today I received another message, this time by user gileri, asking me to comment, and now this thread. 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 (e.g. the deciduous/broad-leved mistake), and would not have had to be reverted. The same is true for user gileri's edit in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27867757 which, had he discussed it before, would likely either not have been executed, or at least not have been executed in a way that drew complaints. The automated edits code of conduct has been created as a result of DWG work, where we often have to deal with the detrimental effects of badly planned, badly executed lone-wolf edits. This is just one of many rules that have been developed in the community; some are written, some are unwritten. Take, for example. changeset comments: While there are recommendations to use good changeset comments, this is not usually enforced. But if there are complaints about someone's edits, DWG may occasionally tell them that they *must* use good changeset comments or we'll block them. Or even basic rules about respect and politeness; they're not enshrined anywhere or shown to you before you sign up. We also have import guidelines (which, by they way, were the reason for another anti-DWG storm in a French teacup a couple years ago when DWG requested that Cadastre importers use a separate import account). Is it *really* a problem that some rules are not shown to people when they sign up? In my opinion, mass edits are an advanced enough topic that, if you research it enough, you *will* be pointed to these rules, or find them in countless answers on help.openstreetmap.org. I'm all for discussing the rules we have, but I'd like to know what exactly the problem is. "There has been no vote on these rules" is not the honest reason for this thread and I refuse to be drawn into an insincere, endless procedural discussion just because someone has an axe to grind with DWG. 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