On 24/10/2017 18:07, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Tomas Straupis
<tomasstrau...@gmail.com <mailto:tomasstrau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2017-10-24 15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia links in OSM
point to
> disambiguation page instead of link Hillfort 1 in OSM to
Hillfort 1 in
> Wikipedia, link Hillfort 2 accordingly and fix Wikipedia doubts in
> Wikipedia?
So that the case is not forgotten and fixed properly (i.e. ALL tags
fixed) by people who know how to do it, not by those who are doing
guesswork and just silencing the "qa" script.
But in general all automated guess-edits are reverted for the time
being because it was clearly stated they are unhelpful and so
unwanted.
Tomas, I do agree that there should not be an automatic script setting
tags based on a heuristic. But what you are saying is very strange if
I understood you correctly. What I read here is that the only people
allowed to fix things are those that know ALL tags and their meaning.
This goes counter to the common sense (nobody knows all 65000+ tags),
and counter to the existing warnings, such as JOSM's validator "when
in doubt, ignore them". You can never have a person who knows
everything about both - the place and OSM tags.
There are two axis of editing: local knowledge and OSM knowledge.
They are orthogonal - I could be a tagging expert, but not know the
area, or a novice editor with the expert local knowledge.
Additionally, "local knowledge" very rapidly decays as you move away
from where you live - another street, neighborhood, city, state,
country, continent. If I see a problem, I can reasonably research the
topic, gain knowledge, and fix the problems in my area of expertise.
Of course someone who lives in the incorrectly tagged building, and
happens to be an expert OSM editor would be ideal, but sorry, no such
luck.
In most cases, the editors who decide to help will make data better.
It might not be perfect, but it is better than before. When you say
you will revert things despite making data worse, just because you
disagree with HOW the problem was found, and not on the basis of
decreasing data quality, you go against the very idea of a common sense.
There is only one reasonable approach to editing - data should be in a
better shape after you than before. More accurate. More complete.
Please don't make assumptions that the data has gotten worse just
because you disagree that there should be a qa script - after all, you
are using them yourself, and no one is reverting all your work based
on that.
+1
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
