gravitystorm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#6512)
> In conversation with the DWG, an idea came up of using existing boundary
> relations. That would be really handy but I suspect we don't have a good way
> to determine if a point is within a boundary (perhaps another reason to add
> PostGIS after all?).
Indeed. Determining the area covered by a boundary relation is much harder
(e.g. super relations, multipolygon areas etc) and would just involve
converting the chosen relation to a polygon anyway. However, the UI for picking
boundaries would be easier for moderators than drawing polygons by hand. But
even after a boundary relation is chosen, we'd probably want to store it in the
polygon form, since the edit war might be involve deleting the relation or
changing its boundaries.
> In some cases moderators would need to create multiple circles, but the UI
> could be made to define several circles as part of a single "block" which
> might hit a right balance of complexity vs utility.
If the UI involves creating multiple circles, we might still want to store the
intersection of those circles? Although...
> a circle might be the simplest solution that gets us going with something
> useful.
>From the UI, perhaps, and it's marginally simpler from a computational science
>point of view since it's the equivalent of
>[ST_Distance](https://postgis.net/docs/ST_Distance.html) /
>[ST_DWithin](https://postgis.net/docs/ST_DWithin.html). We already have this
>(sort of) working for nearby users. But since we'd probably want to use the
>postgis functions rather than doing our own, then
>[ST_Intersects](https://postgis.net/docs/ST_Intersects.html) would available
>too and we're back to storing polygons.
> plus an unrelated change 3000km away, thus triggering this edge case.
I meant more that two innocent changes might get blocked, because the innocent
changeset overlaps with the blocked region. I don't think this would work in
reverse, i.e. if a malicious changeset includes innocent changes elsewhere, the
bounding box will still overlap with the blocked region.
> * A reasonable definition for "new" user could be "fewer than 7 mapping days".
We should align this with "days_for_max_changes" which is implemented for rate
limiting new users. It's a similar concept.
> * Comments should not be blocked by default.
We have multiple types of comments - NoteComment, DiaryComment,
ChangesetComment etc. It's worth being clear which one(s) is/are being referred
to here - all three parent models (Note, DiaryEntry and Changeset) have
coordinate information and so could be in scope for block regions.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/6512#issuecomment-3563482490
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/6512/[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
rails-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rails-dev
