Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
Hi Cj Cj Malone skrev: (23 augusti 2020 23:56:33 CEST) >> Not exactly a very user-friendly system though, especially if you're >> only trying to review requested changes? >> >> & with somewhere between 300k - 600k changes sitting there to look >> at, I don't think the chances are all that high that somebody will >> spot any errors! > >On the face of it I agree, it's a non obvious system and and reviewing >changesets should be encouraged more. I would consider myself an >advanced mapper now, and I've never reviewed a changeset. I never even >knew how to. > >However as an anecdote, the current system seems to work, when I >requested a review of my first 3D building I not only got one, but it >got fixed. [1] [2] > >Cj > >[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70583513 >[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70610688 Thanks for sharing. that's nice to hear. I think we should make it dead simple to monitor how many reviews are done. A checkbox titled "this a review" would be a very nice addition IMO if stored in a Boolean column in the database it could be easily counted how many cs have requested and gotten reviews. I'll try if I can get together with others here in Sweden to review more. Its always more fun to do stuff together. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:34 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Does it really only use the changeset bounding box? That's good as a > first-pass culling test, but I would be somewhat annoyed if my ROI is > "Chicago, IL" and I get notified because someone changed Kansas City, MO > and Detroit, MI in the same changeset without changing anything near > Chicago. > I get annoyed in general when people do that. Grouping unrelated edits into the same changeset is very poor practice. (I do big changesets myself, but the data in any individual changeset are clustered, either in a dense geographic area or along a linear feature.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On 24/08/2020 00.47, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I
thought OSMCha only supports a bbox?
[...] So at the top you should see a map with a button in the top right.
Click that button and trace your polygon on the map.
Thanks. I've always read the text next to the map ("Filter changesets whose
bbox intersect with a location boundary.") as meaning the map helps you
define a bbox. i.e. it wouldn't keep and filter using the polygon, just
uses it to work out a bbox to contain the polygon. Is that text misleading?
Does it really only use the changeset bounding box? That's good as a
first-pass culling test, but I would be somewhat annoyed if my ROI is
"Chicago, IL" and I get notified because someone changed Kansas City, MO
and Detroit, MI in the same changeset without changing anything near
Chicago.
--
Matthew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:40 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 15:27, Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> I watch flagged changesets in my state, all changesets in my county and >> all changesets by people I've flagged to watch. I review all edits of new >> mappers to offer them tips if needed. For flagged changesets in the state >> and all changesets in my county I review ones that seem interesting. If >> they request a review I try to review them. So far no one on my watch list >> has reappeared. Those are ones that vandalised OSM and were reported to DWG. >> >> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:06 PM Jonathon Rossi >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey >>> wrote: >>> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set a polygon area you're interested in monitoring >>> >>> Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I >>> thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? >>> >> >> You can specify a city, county, state or country as well as a bounding >> box when creating a filter. >> > > How were you able to view multiple filters at the same time (eg. watchlist > of users anywhere + all changesets within bounds)? Or do you have to > constantly need to switch filters? I can only handle one listing so > anything I can't fit into one filter I miss even though I'd prefer to see > it. > Harvey, I have three different osmcha saved filters with rss feeds. -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 04:12, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > You can tag the changeset in OSMCha as Good or Bad, but unfortunately no > middle ground of just "Reviewed". on the other hand, if you can’t tell whether it is good it probably isn’t reviewed either... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 15:27, Clifford Snow wrote: > I watch flagged changesets in my state, all changesets in my county and > all changesets by people I've flagged to watch. I review all edits of new > mappers to offer them tips if needed. For flagged changesets in the state > and all changesets in my county I review ones that seem interesting. If > they request a review I try to review them. So far no one on my watch list > has reappeared. Those are ones that vandalised OSM and were reported to DWG. > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:06 PM Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey >> wrote: >> >>> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set >>> a polygon area you're interested in monitoring >>> >> >> Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I >> thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? >> > > You can specify a city, county, state or country as well as a bounding box > when creating a filter. > How were you able to view multiple filters at the same time (eg. watchlist of users anywhere + all changesets within bounds)? Or do you have to constantly need to switch filters? I can only handle one listing so anything I can't fit into one filter I miss even though I'd prefer to see it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
I watch flagged changesets in my state, all changesets in my county and all changesets by people I've flagged to watch. I review all edits of new mappers to offer them tips if needed. For flagged changesets in the state and all changesets in my county I review ones that seem interesting. If they request a review I try to review them. So far no one on my watch list has reappeared. Those are ones that vandalised OSM and were reported to DWG. On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:06 PM Jonathon Rossi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set >> a polygon area you're interested in monitoring >> > > Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I > thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? > You can specify a city, county, state or country as well as a bounding box when creating a filter. Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
I read it as the changeset bbox intersects your location boundary where
your location boundary could be an arbitrary polygon, not that your area of
interest bbox. You can make a suggestion on the OSMCha issue tracker if you
have a better idea though.
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:47, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey
>>> wrote:
>>>
In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen
set a polygon area you're interested in monitoring
>>>
>>> Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I
>>> thought OSMCha only supports a bbox?
>>>
>>
>> [...] So at the top you should see a map with a button in the top right.
>> Click that button and trace your polygon on the map.
>>
>
> Thanks. I've always read the text next to the map ("Filter changesets
> whose bbox intersect with a location boundary.") as meaning the map helps
> you define a bbox. i.e. it wouldn't keep and filter using the polygon, just
> uses it to work out a bbox to contain the polygon. Is that text misleading?
>
> --
> Jono
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set
>>> a polygon area you're interested in monitoring
>>>
>>
>> Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I
>> thought OSMCha only supports a bbox?
>>
>
> [...] So at the top you should see a map with a button in the top right.
> Click that button and trace your polygon on the map.
>
Thanks. I've always read the text next to the map ("Filter changesets whose
bbox intersect with a location boundary.") as meaning the map helps you
define a bbox. i.e. it wouldn't keep and filter using the polygon, just
uses it to work out a bbox to contain the polygon. Is that text misleading?
--
Jono
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:21, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I think OSMCha is really good, but it does have room for improvement. I > get confused between saving a filter and applying the filter, and there is > a bug which will show the polygon from the previously selected filter, it's > very fiddly so might take a couple of attempts. > Bug report -> https://github.com/mapbox/osmcha-frontend/issues/474 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set >> a polygon area you're interested in monitoring >> > > Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I > thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? > When logged into OSMCha you can either click your username dropdown and select My saved filters, and add it, then load it should popup the configuration. So at the top you should see a map with a button in the top right. Click that button and trace your polygon on the map. I think OSMCha is really good, but it does have room for improvement. I get confused between saving a filter and applying the filter, and there is a bug which will show the polygon from the previously selected filter, it's very fiddly so might take a couple of attempts. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set a > polygon area you're interested in monitoring > Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? You can also get an RSS feed for this if you use an RSS reader, otherwise > maybe an RSS to email service could work > RSS feed and RSS to email service (Feedrabbit is a side project of mine) is exactly what I do. I monitor the whole greater Sydney region and south coast and yes it does > take time, but I think it's worth it for the errors you catch. There are a > few others who also review with OSMCha, but we don't have a good way to > distribute the work to avoid duplication and minimize one's slipping > through the gaps. > I don't follow an area anywhere near that big here but I definitely find errors, often with new mappers and sometimes from the organised mapping teams. OSMCha works okay, but something that keeps track of the changesets to review and other states while you are waiting on fixes would help. -- Jono ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
It'll sit there, but other people looking at OSMCha will see you marked it as good so they might choose to not bother checking it, or still check it anyway. You could probably add to the filter to exclude ones marked as Good, depending if you want to check those too. On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 13:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 12:11, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> >> In OSMCha you can mark as good or bad, but no way to say it's been >> reviewed without explicitly saying good/bad. >> > > Thanks, Andrew! > > If you mark it as good, does it then disappear, or just sit there forever? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 12:11, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > In OSMCha you can mark as good or bad, but no way to say it's been > reviewed without explicitly saying good/bad. > Thanks, Andrew! If you mark it as good, does it then disappear, or just sit there forever? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 14:55, pangoSE wrote: > And we have no statistics or functionality to mark a changeser as revieed > so nobody knows how many reviews are done and how many falls through the > cracks. We could make a tool that lists all changesets with a review > request and no comments. > You can tag the changeset in OSMCha as Good or Bad, but unfortunately no middle ground of just "Reviewed". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 15:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 08:13, Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to >> view and post a comment back to the user. >> > > Thanks! > > Not exactly a very user-friendly system though, especially if you're only > trying to review requested changes? > In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set a polygon area you're interested in monitoring, and set Show Flagged to yes and Reasons for Flagging to Review requested. That should then only show changesets which requested a review. You can also get an RSS feed for this if you use an RSS reader, otherwise maybe an RSS to email service could work, or just check OSMCha every now and then. & with somewhere between 300k - 600k changes sitting there to look at, I > don't think the chances are all that high that somebody will spot any > errors! > I monitor the whole greater Sydney region and south coast and yes it does take time, but I think it's worth it for the errors you catch. There are a few others who also review with OSMCha, but we don't have a good way to distribute the work to avoid duplication and minimize one's slipping through the gaps. In OSMCha you can mark as good or bad, but no way to say it's been reviewed without explicitly saying good/bad. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
> Not exactly a very user-friendly system though, especially if you're > only trying to review requested changes? > > & with somewhere between 300k - 600k changes sitting there to look > at, I don't think the chances are all that high that somebody will > spot any errors! On the face of it I agree, it's a non obvious system and and reviewing changesets should be encouraged more. I would consider myself an advanced mapper now, and I've never reviewed a changeset. I never even knew how to. However as an anecdote, the current system seems to work, when I requested a review of my first 3D building I not only got one, but it got fixed. [1] [2] Cj [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70583513 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70610688 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
Hi Shawn "Shawn K. Quinn" skrev: (23 augusti 2020 19:01:53 CEST) >On 8/22/20 23:53, pangoSE wrote: >> And we have no statistics or functionality to mark a changeser as >> revieed so nobody knows how many reviews are done and how many falls >> through the cracks. We could make a tool that lists all changesets >> with a review request and no comments. > >Good idea. I'd like to add that a new mapper's first changesets should >probably be reviewed, even if a review is not requested. I do this for >greater Houston, time permitting. I agree. The tool could highlight that as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On 8/22/20 23:53, pangoSE wrote: > And we have no statistics or functionality to mark a changeser as > revieed so nobody knows how many reviews are done and how many falls > through the cracks. We could make a tool that lists all changesets > with a review request and no comments. Good idea. I'd like to add that a new mapper's first changesets should probably be reviewed, even if a review is not requested. I do this for greater Houston, time permitting. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 08:13, Clifford Snow wrote: > osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to > view and post a comment back to the user. > Thanks! Not exactly a very user-friendly system though, especially if you're only trying to review requested changes? & with somewhere between 300k - 600k changes sitting there to look at, I don't think the chances are all that high that somebody will spot any errors! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
Hi "Jarek Piórkowski" skrev: (23 augusti 2020 00:41:40 CEST) >On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:12, Clifford Snow >wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: >>> Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & >ticked the box "I would like someone to review my edits", which >apparently didn't happen at the time? >>> >>> Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their >edits, where does that appear? >>> >>> Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a >report of some sort sitting somewhere to be processed? >> >> osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy >to view and post a comment back to the user. > >Having said that, it is my impression that realistically a big >majority of review_requested=yes changesets never get a review. I >remember checking it on several of my changesets and never heard >anything. And we have no statistics or functionality to mark a changeser as revieed so nobody knows how many reviews are done and how many falls through the cracks. We could make a tool that lists all changesets with a review request and no comments. I also tested it and never heard anything. I dislike it because it gives a new user the impression we review and have a good follow up process which we generally don't (in Sweden). > >This might depend on the location of the edit too, similarly to how >OSM.org Notes have different resolution rates worldwide. > >(Not picking on anyone, I've also never done a review) I have done a lot of reviews for new swedish edits during some time. It was very rewarding to contact new mappers in the area and offer them a helping hand actually. I found the edits via thia external tool: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious#0/7/21 I'm not recommending we use it though and I'm hesitant to sharing it here because it is not free software. If some of you know the author please contact him and ask him to release the source. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:12, Clifford Snow wrote: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: >> Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the >> box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't >> happen at the time? >> >> Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their edits, >> where does that appear? >> >> Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a report of >> some sort sitting somewhere to be processed? > > osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to view > and post a comment back to the user. Having said that, it is my impression that realistically a big majority of review_requested=yes changesets never get a review. I remember checking it on several of my changesets and never heard anything. This might depend on the location of the edit too, similarly to how OSM.org Notes have different resolution rates worldwide. (Not picking on anyone, I've also never done a review) --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to view and post a comment back to the user. On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:53, Cj Malone < > me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote: > >> 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo. >> > > Not picking on Nathan, as we've all had the occasional ooops! > > Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the > box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't > happen at the time? > > Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their edits, > where does that appear? > > Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a report > of some sort sitting somewhere to be processed? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:53, Cj Malone < me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote: > 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo. > Not picking on Nathan, as we've all had the occasional ooops! Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't happen at the time? Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their edits, where does that appear? Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a report of some sort sitting somewhere to be processed? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
Hi Mateusz Thanks for the link. I agree that forcing someone to map is a bad idea. Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging skrev: (22 augusti 2020 10:54:57 CEST) >Also, his was poorly organized Organised Editing and this person was >forced >to map in OSM by badly designed university assigment. > >If anything that is proof that forcing people to map in OSM is even >less useful >than expected. > >( according to >https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/08/we-tracked-down-the-person-responsible-for-the-flight-simulator-melbourne-monolith/ >) > > >Aug 22, 2020, 10:51 by me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk: > >> On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote: >> >>> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. >>> >https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771 >>> (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the >>> database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the >>> osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM) >>> >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history >> >> 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo. >> >> 2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with >> some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query). >> >> 3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another >issue >> at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map. >> >> >> Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a >novice >> mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great >> quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen >anyway, >> I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the >house >> number in the building levels quest. >> >> The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a >> high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from >> ever happening again. >> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
Thanks for sharing. I have no intention of contacting the user in question. It was just an illustrative example. I don't know why this was posted to the tagging list. I intend to keep this discussion on the talk list so please respond there to keep the discussion together. Cj Malone skrev: (22 augusti 2020 10:51:10 CEST) >On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote: >> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. >> >https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771 >> (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the >> database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the >> osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM) > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history > >1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo. > >2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with >some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query). > >3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another issue >at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map. > > >Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a novice >mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great >quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen anyway, >I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the house >number in the building levels quest. > >The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a >high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from >ever happening again. > > > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
Also, his was poorly organized Organised Editing and this person was forced to map in OSM by badly designed university assigment. If anything that is proof that forcing people to map in OSM is even less useful than expected. ( according to https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/08/we-tracked-down-the-person-responsible-for-the-flight-simulator-melbourne-monolith/ ) Aug 22, 2020, 10:51 by me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk: > On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote: > >> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. >> https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771 >> (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the >> database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the >> osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM) >> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history > > 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo. > > 2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with > some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query). > > 3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another issue > at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map. > > > Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a novice > mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great > quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen anyway, > I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the house > number in the building levels quest. > > The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a > high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from > ever happening again. > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote: > Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. > https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771 > (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the > database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the > osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo. 2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query). 3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another issue at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map. Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a novice mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen anyway, I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the house number in the building levels quest. The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from ever happening again. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
