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 enough > to be reverted or not be done in the first place ?
The answer to which is, of course, it depends. For some automated edits the collateral damage will be too great, for others it may sometimes be acceptable. 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). So we need a second opinion - people to review the edit to see whether the collateral damage will be too great. Since OSM is a classic example of "with many eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_Law), the challenge is to make sure enough eyeballs look at the proposed automated edit to see if there are any bugs in it. To ensure this, those proposing an automated edit need to put it in front of people's eyeballs. There are good ways to do that - particularly these mailing lists. Fortunately, this is _exactly_ what http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct suggests. :) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Automated-edits-code-of-conduct-tp5877825p5878347.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
