Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

@mmd,

I have noticed that the proposed fixes were not marked with vote=1. I fixed
them.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_fixes#Proposed_fixes

I'm not sure if vote=1 is needed for the multiple-choice challenges. They
were originally copied from the officially deprecated tags, so technically
they have already been discussed by the community. Also, I would think that
the person who changes amenity=education to college/school/university has
to have the local knowledge, or find business' website and research it
there?  Either case is fine of course.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_fixes#Multiple_Choice_Challenges

Lastly - in case of a manual edit (power mode), Sophox will set
"task_id=manual" to make them easier to find.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Dropping out, was: New OSM Quick-Fix service

[john whelan]

>mostly personal attack [2],

The following is not a personal attack its a last ditch effort to get you
to think before acting or posting.  I may use terms you are not familiar
with urbandictionary.com is a good source for explanations.

You seem to take any comment by anyone who does not wholeheartedly agree
with you as a personal attack. I get the impression that English is not
your first language?  Trust me as a native English speaker there have only
been issues raised and none of Frederik's post have been personal.  I do
sense frustration in them.  I share his frustration as I get the impression
you don't understand what is being attempted to communicate.  You don't
seem to be analyzing what is being said.  You are saying words but they
might just as well be from an AI bot for all the sense they make.  Go more
formal.  Keep the sentences shorter.  Keep to one small topic at a time.

OpenStreetMap origins were people coming together as a community and
mapping.  The community aspect is still very important. The technical term
is called people skills.  It's called being polite and listening.  It's a
skill that will serve you well in life.  I think the only people I know who
do not require people skills or political skills with a small p are quants
and that is only because their skills are in very high demand.

If you wish to join the community in mapping then please listen to what it
says.  If you want to do something else fine, you can set up your own OSM
server and play on that to your heart's content but if you are playing on
the OSM community's database then you should abide by their rules.

The thing you don't seem to be comfortable with is the idea that someone
mapped something as they wanted to map it.  Yes they may well have got it
wrong from your point of view but it might well be correct from their point
of view and that is what OpenStreetMap is about.  Letting people map what
they want to map in the way they wish to do it.  By changing their tagging
you may offend the mapper and since its the mappers who are the most
important part of OSM this is not good.  This is a major reason why
automated edits are frowned on.  The other is if you don't know what you
are doing you can screw things up royally and by some of the feedback
you've had the community needs reassurance that you aren't screwing things
up royally.

Hopefully some of this might sink in, hopefully it might help you in other
ways than just dealing with OSM.

Mapping is supposed to be fun and this isn't.

Cheerio John

On 13 November 2017 at 19:42, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> Frederik, once again you are using your position and mailing list as a
> tribune, speaking to others instead of speaking to me.  I posted [1] my
> initial idea/tool, and you immediately wrote a large, mostly personal
> attack [2], rather than something like [3] - which also criticized, but
> helped guide it forward. Most of the issues you mention in [2] have long
> been addressed, but you don't care to discuss the actual changes - you
> already made up your mind that it's evil, and you haven't replied to a
> single attempt at a substantive communication. I even offered to video talk
> to you directly, hoping that an understanding could be reached, but alas.
>
> I think your emails strongly polarized community.  I kept changing and
> adapting Sophox based on the received feedback, including yours. I don't
> think you have ever changed the rhetoric or tried to gain understanding or
> a compromise. People come to the project, bring new ideas, and try to fix
> issues they see as important to them. Instead of trying to understand and
> adapt, several hard-liners have taken the "this is not how it's done around
> here" approach, and forced people out.
>
> Accusations are easy - we can spew them thousands at a time. Refuting them
> one by one takes much more effort. Saying that I jump topics many times
> doesn't make it so.  I am very consistently discussing just one thing -
> Sophox [4], and how it can help make OSM better. Tons of people want to
> runs bots on OSM, but Sophox tries to find a safe middle ground between
> bots and humans, addressing the problems that are clearly there (otherwise
> all these tools wouldn't have been created).
>
> [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-
> October/079145.html
> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-
> October/079146.html
> [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-
> October/079172.html
> [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sophox
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Frederik Ramm 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/13/2017 10:58 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>> > Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument.
>>
>> Yuri, I think at this point it is time for me to stop reading your
>> contributions here. You are not genuinely trying to understand; this is
>> just a smoke-screen. You are trying to win an argument here by cleverly
>> jumping from topic to topic, puttin

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Michael Reichert 
wrote:

> Hi Yuri,
>
> Am 13.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> > Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. As for
> this
> > case -- this is not a mechanical edit. Per definition. I looked at each
> of
> > these three features, analyzed them, and thought this is a reasonable
> > change. You could call it a mistake (I am human), but it cannot be called
> > mechanical.
>
> Here comes another of our unwritten rules into play. Even if a
> systematical edit [1] is not a mechanical edit, it is sensible to
> discuss it beforehand as if it were a mechanical edit (although you
> could steps which involve the OSM wiki). This rule is unwritten but
> people who have followed discussions on any relevant mailing list or
> forum section will know it because some other users mentioned it there.
> That's why silently reading discussions for a while before doing
> possibly disruptive things in OSM is recommended (another unwritten rule).
>
> Michael, was there a URL [1] missing?   I 100% agree with you about this
unwritten rule, and that's why I am here too, discussing the tool and the
quick fix tasks. I might disagree with some of the hardliners, but thanks
to the discussion and feedback, Sophox tool has been substantially changed.
Also an existing rule in JOSM has been fixed.

The quick fixes have all been published, and I hope we can agree which ones
are non-conflicting. I do get a lot of animosity instead of fruitful
discussion, but despite that there has been a number of good comments that
helped it improve.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Dropping out, was: New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Frederik, once again you are using your position and mailing list as a
tribune, speaking to others instead of speaking to me.  I posted [1] my
initial idea/tool, and you immediately wrote a large, mostly personal
attack [2], rather than something like [3] - which also criticized, but
helped guide it forward. Most of the issues you mention in [2] have long
been addressed, but you don't care to discuss the actual changes - you
already made up your mind that it's evil, and you haven't replied to a
single attempt at a substantive communication. I even offered to video talk
to you directly, hoping that an understanding could be reached, but alas.

I think your emails strongly polarized community.  I kept changing and
adapting Sophox based on the received feedback, including yours. I don't
think you have ever changed the rhetoric or tried to gain understanding or
a compromise. People come to the project, bring new ideas, and try to fix
issues they see as important to them. Instead of trying to understand and
adapt, several hard-liners have taken the "this is not how it's done around
here" approach, and forced people out.

Accusations are easy - we can spew them thousands at a time. Refuting them
one by one takes much more effort. Saying that I jump topics many times
doesn't make it so.  I am very consistently discussing just one thing -
Sophox [4], and how it can help make OSM better. Tons of people want to
runs bots on OSM, but Sophox tries to find a safe middle ground between
bots and humans, addressing the problems that are clearly there (otherwise
all these tools wouldn't have been created).

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079145.html
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079146.html
[3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079172.html
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sophox

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 11/13/2017 10:58 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> > Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument.
>
> Yuri, I think at this point it is time for me to stop reading your
> contributions here. You are not genuinely trying to understand; this is
> just a smoke-screen. You are trying to win an argument here by cleverly
> jumping from topic to topic, putting words in people's mouths, and if
> that's not enough you try to simply write 20x more than anybody else
> hoping to wear everyone out.
>
> This mailing list is not a high school debate club, however much you
> treat it like one, and you've abused OpenStreetMap as your playground
> for far too long already starting when you first lied to me about
> stopping your mass wikidata tag additions. I'm tired of it and I won't
> make any further attempts to explain things to you.
>
> Just in case you are tempted to interpret future silence from me as a
> silent agreement - don't. Ever.
>
> 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
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Branko Kokanovic]

Hi all,
Lurking, but first time posting. I was trying to just ignore this
thread, but at this point, I had to add my 2c... My story: I am rather
new to OSM community (although I joined in 2009[1], probably before most
of you reading this:), came here (again) recently, full of optimism to
improve world (literally:). Created complete fancy tool to do fixes in
Serbia[2] and along the way, I learned about Sophox. This turned out to
be really cool tool to deal with problems we have in Serbia community
with 2 scripts (cyrillic/latin) and it helped me a lot, as you can
see[3]. Plan was even to get rid of my tool. I was also making plans
with Yuri to add support to query individual regions[4]!, and was eager
to work on that. However, I learned in this short period that this
community unfortunately has very fixed mindset (IMHO!). Yes, I can
understand rules you created around here and I understand needs for
them, and I tried really hard to obey all rules, stick to them, learn
new ones, not to get down whenever somebody interrogated my
changesets/reverted my whole day of work without asking, but now that
the bot I was doing work under is publicly mentioned in (IMHO) wrong
context, and now that it is banned, I cannot collect enough enthusiasm
to continue, I just give up from this unwelcoming community.
Don't get me wrong, I still think OSM is awesome, I will continue to
use it as always, but it is just not for me - it is clear that majority
of people here is strongly against mechanical edits (it's not about
Sophox really?) and I am kind of guy that thinks automation is
solution to everything:) (no, you should not take this literally!:) So,
all the good luck in this nice stringent community, but I will continue
to be just a user:)
Thanks, Branko

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Branko%20Kokanovic
[2] https://github.com/stalker314314/serbian-osm-lint
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Serbia/Sophox
[4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T179991


On Tue, Nov 14, 2017, at 00:32, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> While it is easy to throw tons of accusations and be less civil, I
> will try maintain my level of decency.  I have forwarded you a snippet
> of one of the emails I received (without the sender name). Also, you
> are welcome to organize some independent person you trust in NYC to
> stop by and examine it in person, and I hope that person will be
> decent not to disclose the sender.> 
> I am still in this chat, despite the witch hunt. Which implies I do
> want to listen, and civilly communicate. The witch hunt is a fun
> activity for some, but others do provide useful feedback and comments,
> and that's why I am still hopeful.  Note that the ones who offered
> specific feedback and suggestions have not spoken yet after the
> changes, with the exception of @mmd (thanks!)> 
> Distorting what? I present my case. Most of the arguments are ignored.
> Tiny pieces of the emails get blown out of proportion.  I said a) why
> i do it, b) why i think its better than existing system, c) how it
> makes it easier to review/revert, unlike the current system. And I
> keep repeating these things from various angles, explaining that at
> the end of the day, this will make OSM better for everyone.  Instead,
> we are discussing everything but the above.> 
> _
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

While it is easy to throw tons of accusations and be less civil, I will try
maintain my level of decency.  I have forwarded you a snippet of one of the
emails I received (without the sender name). Also, you are welcome to
organize some independent person you trust in NYC to stop by and examine it
in person, and I hope that person will be decent not to disclose the sender.

I am still in this chat, despite the witch hunt. Which implies I do want to
listen, and civilly communicate. The witch hunt is a fun activity for some,
but others do provide useful feedback and comments, and that's why I am
still hopeful.  Note that the ones who offered specific feedback and
suggestions have not spoken yet after the changes, with the exception of
@mmd (thanks!)

Distorting what? I present my case. Most of the arguments are ignored. Tiny
pieces of the emails get blown out of proportion.  I said a) why i do it,
b) why i think its better than existing system, c) how it makes it easier
to review/revert, unlike the current system. And I keep repeating these
things from various angles, explaining that at the end of the day, this
will make OSM better for everyone.  Instead, we are discussing everything
but the above.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Dropping out, was: New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/13/2017 10:58 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. 

Yuri, I think at this point it is time for me to stop reading your
contributions here. You are not genuinely trying to understand; this is
just a smoke-screen. You are trying to win an argument here by cleverly
jumping from topic to topic, putting words in people's mouths, and if
that's not enough you try to simply write 20x more than anybody else
hoping to wear everyone out.

This mailing list is not a high school debate club, however much you
treat it like one, and you've abused OpenStreetMap as your playground
for far too long already starting when you first lied to me about
stopping your mass wikidata tag additions. I'm tired of it and I won't
make any further attempts to explain things to you.

Just in case you are tempted to interpret future silence from me as a
silent agreement - don't. Ever.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/11/2017 22:31, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
...  Maybe I should write up an FAQ with all the arguments raised 
here, and simply refer to them? It would save on typing.


No, maybe you should just listen and act on the feedback that you're 
getting here.  There have been an awful lot of replies in this thread, 
and the vast majority have been directly critical of what you're doing here.


As JB said earlier ("Did someone already said that you mix issues?"), 
you're deliberately trying to confuse and distort what people have said 
(also e.g. "I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument").


In the mean time, I receive *multiple* private emails of support from 
people who feel intimidated to discuss it here


Ah, that old chestnut.  Unfortunately we have absolutely no evidence for 
this other than your word for it, and as you've not been entirely honest 
in the past*, such statements carry little weight.


Best Regards,
Andy

* https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079085.html


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

@mmd, thanks, inline:

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:32 PM, mmd  wrote:

> > * Added voting - experimental tasks require two users agreement to
> change DB
>
> I assumed this to be a mandatory part of the new process. However, some
> recent edits made by a "Serbian OSM Lint bot" [1] via your tool
> indicates that you can skip pretty much all of those safeguards, and
> still be able to run mass updates without any kind of voting, two user
> agreement, etc. Not sure, if this is intentional, or a bug.
>

The voting is meant to be used by the task authors when they publish
experimental tasks to the community. For example, if I write a new,
possibly contentious task that might cause significant disruption, and
decide to publish it to a large community, I should enable voting for that
task by setting "vote": true -- especially because most of the users might
not be experts in the specific change. If I simply use Sophox as my own
power editor, instead of JOSM/Level0/...,  I would edit things directly,
and follow the same rules as set for the rest of the community. In this
case, Serbian OSM Lint bot simply makes these changes directly. I think
that person used to add name:sr with a custom script and/or by hand, and
now simply uses Sophox for their work.

> * Made it simple to revert Sophox changes: changesets now contain
> > "task_id" to track task-related edits.
>
> Also, this seems to be optional:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53753685 has task_id =
> "undefined" and was editing via Sophox 0.5. Isn't this case handled in
> your tool to forbid creating such changesets in the first place?
>

This change was not done as part of a task, it was done in the "power
editor" mode (as described above).  I think task_id should be set to
something else though, instead of undefined, to indicate that the user is
using it in the power mode, and takes personal responsibility for all
changes. Or I could simply not add the task_id tag in those cases. BTW, I
think they should still use taskId in addition to the comment to better
track their work.

BTW, it is not possible to run a task without task id in a published
(embed) mode.  You can only run it as a task developer by hand (by editing
the query, clicking run button, and scrolling down into the results section)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Yuri,

Am 13.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. As for this
> case -- this is not a mechanical edit. Per definition. I looked at each of
> these three features, analyzed them, and thought this is a reasonable
> change. You could call it a mistake (I am human), but it cannot be called
> mechanical.

Here comes another of our unwritten rules into play. Even if a
systematical edit [1] is not a mechanical edit, it is sensible to
discuss it beforehand as if it were a mechanical edit (although you
could steps which involve the OSM wiki). This rule is unwritten but
people who have followed discussions on any relevant mailing list or
forum section will know it because some other users mentioned it there.
That's why silently reading discussions for a while before doing
possibly disruptive things in OSM is recommended (another unwritten rule).

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Thanks Christoph, I love #386 too.  As I repeatedly stated - my goal is to
allow simpler way for community to fix issues, which in turn would lower
data consumer entry barrier. Not prove someone incorrect (despite the
appearance). Several specific issues and suggestions were raised in this
thread, and they have been resolved. I proposed that we pick a some well
understood tasks for wider review, but instead we got bugged down with
level=0 debate. Many times I stated (what I hope is a) logical argument,
but a few people pick one tiny sentence out of the whole thing and argue
about that, or do a personal attack.  Maybe I should write up an FAQ with
all the arguments raised here, and simply refer to them? It would save on
typing. In the mean time, I receive *multiple* private emails of support
from people who feel intimidated to discuss it here - and I think this is
by far the most significant problem with this discussion, and community
health in general?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> > Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. [...]
>
> If you have made this assumption about anyone who you have communicated
> with in the OSM community in the past you would be well advised to stop
> that and review the views you have developed based on that assumption.
>
> https://xkcd.com/386/ is something something most of us have stopped
> doing relatively soon after we discovered the internet...
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[mmd]

Am 07.11.2017 um 07:29 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> The tool has been thoroughly reworked, thanks to many good suggestions.
> Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas - they help
> us all move forward and reach agreement.
> 
> What's new:
> * Added "reject" vote button
> * Tasks can now offer multiple choices selection (thanks Tobias for the
> idea)
> * Added voting - experimental tasks require two users agreement to change DB

I assumed this to be a mandatory part of the new process. However, some
recent edits made by a "Serbian OSM Lint bot" [1] via your tool
indicates that you can skip pretty much all of those safeguards, and
still be able to run mass updates without any kind of voting, two user
agreement, etc. Not sure, if this is intentional, or a bug.


> * Users can "unvote" their own votes
> * Multiple changes per changeset
> * All votes are stored in the same RDF db, so the task can query it too.

> * Made it simple to revert Sophox changes: changesets now contain
> "task_id" to track task-related edits.

Also, this seems to be optional:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53753685 has task_id =
"undefined" and was editing via Sophox 0.5. Isn't this case handled in
your tool to forbid creating such changesets in the first place?

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Serbian%20OSM%20Lint%20bot


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Yuri,

Am 13.11.2017 um 13:20 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> Christoph, I don't think this works for any community that grows beyond a
> certain size, especially when the community is not in the same
> location/building/land otherwise, and doesn't see each other every day.
> Look at Wikipedia, or any large social organization for that matter. At the
> village/startup level, you have very few codified rules, but as the group
> grows to a city/corporation size, it becomes more and more bureaucratic. We
> may not like it, but clear rules help community maintain cohesion, and
> prevents many conflicts.

No, it works. It works if someone is considerate and mindful and listens
(reads) what people write on mailing lists and forums. That's how I
learned how OSM works. I have read the mailing lists (Talk-de when it
was one of the most active mailing lists) and the German forum and
learned a lot of unwritten rules there. For example, the AGF rule, the
on the ground rule, to be friendly with newbies, not to blindly trust
satellite imagery and so on.

But if someone just bursts into a community instead of feeling his way,
it won't be a surprise if he violates a dozen of unwritten social rules
with one single action.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. [...]

If you have made this assumption about anyone who you have communicated 
with in the OSM community in the past you would be well advised to stop 
that and review the views you have developed based on that assumption.

https://xkcd.com/386/ is something something most of us have stopped 
doing relatively soon after we discovered the internet...

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/13/2017 08:52 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times
> previously, with JOSM autofixes you're performing edits in an area where
> you've already edited.  You're presumably somewhat familiar with what's
> there

I'll also repeat something I have mentioned a while ago in this thread:
People have been blocked and their edits reverted for blindly loading
one area after the other in JOSM and clicking the fix button without
having knowledge of or interest in the area, because that counted as a
mechanical edit. If someone does the same just without JOSM in the loop,
of course it's also a mechanical edit that requires prior discussion.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Andy, I can only assume you agree with the rest of my argument. As for this
case -- this is not a mechanical edit. Per definition. I looked at each of
these three features, analyzed them, and thought this is a reasonable
change. You could call it a mistake (I am human), but it cannot be called
mechanical.

I have contacted the original author, but haven't heard back.  Judging by
their site, it does look like both a marsh and a monument. You might want
to classify it as something else - that's where the tag expert is needed.
http://gardenseeds.swarthmore.edu/gardenseeds/2017/03/return-of-crumhenge/

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 13/11/2017 21:19, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
>
> Andy, as I stated before, JOSM doesn't force you to edit in your area - it
> shows you whatever data you download. OverpassT can provide it to JOSM
> anywhere too. Your query in Sophox can be limited to an area, or can be
> anywhere - it all depends on the task's query. Also, you keep misusing the
> word "mechanical edit" (per wiki definition, see my other email).  Don't
> dilute the term.
>
>
> Unfortunately, a mechanical edit looks exactly like what you're doing -
> see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53598691 for example.  The
> tags on that as they stand (before or after your edit) don't make a whole
> lot of sense - likely there's a whole bunch of stuff there yet to be
> mapped, and maybe someone more familiar with the area would know if either
> the "memorial" or "marsh" tags make any sense.
>
> Best Regards,
> Andy
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/11/2017 21:19, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:


Andy, as I stated before, JOSM doesn't force you to edit in your area 
- it shows you whatever data you download. OverpassT can provide it to 
JOSM anywhere too. Your query in Sophox can be limited to an area, or 
can be anywhere - it all depends on the task's query. Also, you keep 
misusing the word "mechanical edit" (per wiki definition, see my other 
email).  Don't dilute the term.




Unfortunately, a mechanical edit looks exactly like what you're doing - 
see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53598691 for example.  The 
tags on that as they stand (before or after your edit) don't make a 
whole lot of sense - likely there's a whole bunch of stuff there yet to 
be mapped, and maybe someone more familiar with the area would know if 
either the "memorial" or "marsh" tags make any sense.


Best Regards,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 13/11/2017 19:36, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> > That's why I think Sophox is a much better and safer alternative to
> JOSM's autofixes.
>
> At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times
> previously, with JOSM autofixes you're performing edits in an area where
> you've already edited.  You're presumably somewhat familiar with what's
> there (you may even have actually visited in person and seen what it looks
> like on the ground). With your "tool" you're simply performing a mechanical
> edit with no experience of the underlying data.
>

Andy, as I stated before, JOSM doesn't force you to edit in your area - it
shows you whatever data you download. OverpassT can provide it to JOSM
anywhere too. Your query in Sophox can be limited to an area, or can be
anywhere - it all depends on the task's query. Also, you keep misusing the
word "mechanical edit" (per wiki definition, see my other email).  Don't
dilute the term.

My main point remains - doing a "by-the-way fixing" is worse than dedicated
effort to fix one issue at a time. Tagging experts who studied specific
issue, and who reviewed all relevant wiki notes and comment are better than
a local user who auto-accepts all JOSM-suggested fixes because they sound
reasonable, but who might have missed all the nuances of the specific tag
change. This makes it unrevertable and impossible to find. Also, it's bad
because if a user doesn't accept them, a subsequent editor eventually
will.  Local expertise needs to be balanced with tagging task expertise -
and sorry, there is no unicorn, who knows both perfectly.

In Rory's example - you cannot find who changed what in the past 16 months
for the bathroom autofix. You cannot revert it, because it is mixed with
others. My tool solves that, because experts can review it, and later
experts in that specific issue can review all found cases, and spot
errors.  Even if one person doing a Sophox task spots an error and tags it
as invalid, we can easily notice it and adjust or remove the task, and
easily revert all changes made for that task.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Serious JOSM performance degradation

[Bob Hawkins]

I posted a topic on this matter in OpenStreetMap Forum>Editors on the very same 
day as this thread was started, by coincidence, and directed to this mailing 
list by SomeoneElse.  I received helpful replies and believe I have succeeded 
in overcoming the slow responses we were experiencing as a result.  My reply is 
here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=60403.  I should be 
interested to learn if it helps others.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/11/2017 19:36, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:

> That's why I think Sophox is a much better and safer alternative to 
JOSM's autofixes.


At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times 
previously, with JOSM autofixes you're performing edits in an area where 
you've already edited.  You're presumably somewhat familiar with what's 
there (you may even have actually visited in person and seen what it 
looks like on the ground).


With your "tool" you're simply performing a mechanical edit with no 
experience of the underlying data.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:

> On 13/11/17 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
>> if an accepted tool already does something in a certain way, and noone is
>> raising any objections to it, I think other software should follow in the
>> same foot steps.
>>
> > ...
>
>> I haven't heard anyone saying that JOSM validator autofixes do a bad
>> thing until this conversation. Do you think they are bad?
>>
>
> Yes, sometimes! I looked at your fixes, saw one that didn't make sense,
> (about unisex toilets) followed it to the JOSM validator, filed a bug which
> seems to be fixed ( https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/15536 ).
>
> JOSM isn't perfect, "many eyes make all bugs shallow" etc.
>
> Great, thanks for spotting it! I will update the Sophox task shortly as
well.
But my statement about "tool doing something in a certain way" is not about
the specific task - as they can be buggy in every tool. I was talking about
the overall JOSM autofix approach that Sophox copies and attempts to
improve. I don't think your example argues against that.

On the contrary, your example shows that it is much better to have these
tasks standalone, with an expert oversight.  Right now you have no easy way
to find when users have auto-fixed the bathrooms using JOSM - there could
be none, or thousands.  And they are mixed together with other changes,
making it nearly impossible to revert. With Sophox, you can instantly find
them all, and review/revert them - simply search changsets for
task_id=josm_unisex_female_male_dup.  That's why I think Sophox is a much
better and safer alternative to JOSM's autofixes.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Rory McCann]

On 13/11/17 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
if an accepted tool already does something in a certain way, and 
noone is raising any objections to it, I think other software should 
follow in the same foot steps.

> ...
I haven't heard anyone saying that JOSM validator autofixes do a bad 
thing until this conversation. Do you think they are bad?


Yes, sometimes! I looked at your fixes, saw one that didn't make sense, 
(about unisex toilets) followed it to the JOSM validator, filed a bug 
which seems to be fixed ( https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/15536 ).


JOSM isn't perfect, "many eyes make all bugs shallow" etc.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/13/17 13:04, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>> Christoph, thanks for clarifying.  I should have been a bit more
>> careful with that word.  Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not
>> authoritative for deprecation, than what is?  "Community consensus
>> that something is not to be used" has to be documented somewhere,
>> right?

> No, it does not have to.  It is the nature of most societies that not 
> all social rules that exist are also codified.  The process of becoming 
> a member of the OSM community to a large part consists of becoming 
> familiar with and developing an intuitive understanding of the 
> unwritten rules.

If I may add something here: OpenStreetMap has many unwritten rules and
this usually isn't a problem if someone goes through a normal
socialisation process - starting small with a few edits around their
house, looking around what others do, following a discussion or two,
etc.; they will pick up the rules as they go. This is just like in any
other society. It can go wrong when people from outside of OSM come in
and want to "hit the ground running", believing that their age, their
life experience, or their IT skills will automatically make them a
black-belt member of the OSM community. Upon noticing that there's maybe
more to OSM than can be seen from the API wiki page, some people try to
slow down and adapt, while others keep running and explain to everyone
in OSM how they're doing it wrong (or blame OSM for not having an
exhaustive handbook that you can study in order to avoid having to talk
to actual people).

Most rules that you find written in the Wiki were unwritten rules first,
and have been written down in order to make the onboarding easier for
new people - for example, we talked about "not tagging for the renderer"
long before http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
existed. The wiki page now tries to explain that unwritten rule to
people, but that doesn't mean the wiki page *is* the rule. It's like
when you read in a travel guide that walking barefoot is frowned upon in
the country you plan to visit. The travel guide is trying to be helpful
so you don't embarrass yourself but the travel guide isn't the authority.

So yes, like Christoph says, in OSM community consensus isn't
necessarily written somewhere because you will learn about it while
becoming a member of the community. Even so, everyday normal mapping
(even by a total newbie) hardly ever falls foul of community consensus
if mappers let themselves be guided by presets and try do "blend in".

It works reasonably well on the whole.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Christoph, I don't think this works for any community that grows beyond a
certain size, especially when the community is not in the same
location/building/land otherwise, and doesn't see each other every day.
Look at Wikipedia, or any large social organization for that matter. At the
village/startup level, you have very few codified rules, but as the group
grows to a city/corporation size, it becomes more and more bureaucratic. We
may not like it, but clear rules help community maintain cohesion, and
prevents many conflicts.


On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> > Christoph, thanks for clarifying.  I should have been a bit more
> > careful with that word.  Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not
> > authoritative for deprecation, than what is?  "Community consensus
> > that something is not to be used" has to be documented somewhere,
> > right?
>
> No, it does not have to.  It is the nature of most societies that not
> all social rules that exist are also codified.  The process of becoming
> a member of the OSM community to a large part consists of becoming
> familiar with and developing an intuitive understanding of the
> unwritten rules.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Christoph, thanks for clarifying.  I should have been a bit more
> careful with that word.  Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not
> authoritative for deprecation, than what is?  "Community consensus
> that something is not to be used" has to be documented somewhere,
> right?

No, it does not have to.  It is the nature of most societies that not 
all social rules that exist are also codified.  The process of becoming 
a member of the OSM community to a large part consists of becoming 
familiar with and developing an intuitive understanding of the 
unwritten rules.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Christoph, thanks for clarifying.  I should have been a bit more careful
with that word.  Could you clarify one thing - if wiki is not authoritative
for deprecation, than what is?  "Community consensus that something is not
to be used" has to be documented somewhere, right?

Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits

*Automated edits* and *semi-automated edits* (sometimes called *mechanical
edits*) are changes made to OpenStreetMap content with no or very limited
human oversight, including those made by bots
, algorithmic processes, imports
 and also major
changes made using general-purpose map editing tools such as JOSM
.


This differs from your own definition. The wiki definition does not discuss
which features are being edited, or how I pick what to edit. It
concentrates on the oversight - if I oversee each change one by one, and
pay attention to it, by the above definition it is not an automated, nor a
mechanical edit. A bot is an automated edit. Loading things into JOSM, and
renaming 100 instances of tag "foo" into "bar" is a semi automated
(mechanical) edit, because both lack oversight for each change.

JD, The whole layer=0 conversation started with this message:

I have copied some of the JOSM & deprecation autofixes as Sophox tasks
> (quick fixes page). *Which of them would be good for the first review? *It
> should probably be more obvious, like replacing identical
> maxspeed:forward+maxspeed:backward with maxspeed tag, or removing
> layer=0, etc.
>
> As you can see, it was a call for a balanced discussion on what would be
good to fix, in a way Map Roulette and other fixing tools do it.  Instead,
we are now discussing if layer=0 and semantics.  I agree that using words
correctly is paramount to understanding each other, but if we target one
example, and blow it into multiple messages, it helps no one.


> I only think I will print Frederick's mails, and regularly read them again
> and again.
>
Frederick's mail have been very passionate, and they would be great for
uniting people for a cause, but I don't think they were as productive or
consensus reaching as some other emails. Vilifying your opponent does not
help the discussion - we are talking about ideas and tools, not persons.
Otherwise we end up with Facebook's opinion bubble, where both sides sit in
their own hall of mirrors, and don't try to reach any mutual understanding.


> I will not answer anymore to this thread. It feels too much like a
> scientific paper submission: If you answer to every objection, even
> sometimes with halt-truth, there will come a time when there is no more to
> say.
>

Using a word with a slightly different meaning is not the same as a
half-truth. Half-truth implies a lie. If you think I have lied or mislead,
say so, and explain where. Otherwise, this is baseless accusations.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 13 November 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> The wiki deprecation only lists one =no:  highway=no, but we are not
> discussing that one yet --
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features
>
> I used the word "deprecated" in a more general term, to mean anything
> that community has decided to phase out, such as JOSM autofixes and
> deprecation list.

For the record (so people reading this later do not get a wrong 
impression) - 'deprecated' in the OSM context means that there is a 
community consensus that something is not to be used any more in new 
mapping.  The wiki, editor presets etc. are not authoritive in that 
regard and deprecation does not supersede the freedom of mappers to map 
how they see fit (in other words: it is not forbidden to use deprecated 
tags).

And automatic fixes in JOSM are not normally mechanical edits because 
they are only applied to features that are (manually) edited otherwise.  
Applying the same 'fixes' mechanically to all features with a certain 
tag however is a mechanical edit and needs to be discussed on a 
per-case basis - always, no matter how trivial, useful or obvious they 
might seem to anyone.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[JB]

I only think I will print Frederick's mails, and regularly read them 
again and again.
Deprecated implies «bad, should not exist in OSM database, no one 
reviewed this object for the last years». It has very strong 
implications in OSM vocabulary. Using it here would have the effect to 
readers «Yes, if it's deprecated, of course it should be deleted». No, 
they are not deprecated, they only are useless to software parsers. They 
may be useful for contributors.
I will not answer anymore to this thread. It feels too much like a 
scientific paper submission: If you answer to every objection, even 
sometimes with halt-truth, there will come a time when there is no more 
to say.

JB.

Le 13/11/2017 à 11:27, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
JB, try to avoid swearword outburst, not helpful. Are you taking issue 
with the word "deprecated"?   The proper word should probably have 
been "unnecessary" to discuss the layer=0, per JOSM's naming:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/data/validator/unnecessary.mapcss 



The wiki deprecation only lists one =no:  highway=no, but we are not 
discussing that one yet -- 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features


I used the word "deprecated" in a more general term, to mean anything 
that community has decided to phase out, such as JOSM autofixes and 
deprecation list.


I have no   clue what you meant otherwise about mixing issues. I am 
attempting to answer every possible question being raised. So far 
there has been a few very constructive and helpful emails, and lots of 
sidetracks. If you want to stay focused, re-read my initial post, as 
well as my most latest post with the new tool capabilities, or just 
read the Sophox wiki page and try to follow the style of Simon & 
Tobias - both have raised valid objections, and in both cases it 
resulted in tool's improvements.


On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:05 AM, JB > wrote:


Le 13/11/2017 à 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :

You are right that =0 and =no seem like nobrainers, but if we
have listed them as deprecated, we should not use them.

Deprecated? Where did you find that?
(Swearwords somewhere here. Did someone already said that you mix
issues?)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Yuri Astrakhan]

JB, try to avoid swearword outburst, not helpful.  Are you taking issue
with the word "deprecated"?   The proper word should probably have been
"unnecessary" to discuss the layer=0, per JOSM's naming:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/data/validator/unnecessary.mapcss

The wiki deprecation only lists one =no:  highway=no, but we are not
discussing that one yet --
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features

I used the word "deprecated" in a more general term, to mean anything that
community has decided to phase out, such as JOSM autofixes and deprecation
list.

I have no   clue what you meant otherwise about mixing issues. I am
attempting to answer every possible question being raised. So far there has
been a few very constructive and helpful emails, and lots of sidetracks. If
you want to stay focused, re-read my initial post, as well as my most
latest post with the new tool capabilities, or just read the Sophox wiki
page and try to follow the style of Simon & Tobias - both have raised valid
objections, and in both cases it resulted in tool's improvements.

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:05 AM, JB  wrote:

> Le 13/11/2017 à 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
>
>> You are right that =0 and =no seem like nobrainers, but if we have listed
>> them as deprecated, we should not use them.
>>
> Deprecated? Where did you find that?
> (Swearwords somewhere here. Did someone already said that you mix issues?)
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[JB]

Le 13/11/2017 à 01:16, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
You are right that =0 and =no seem like nobrainers, but if we have 
listed them as deprecated, we should not use them. 

Deprecated? Where did you find that?
(Swearwords somewhere here. Did someone already said that you mix issues?)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk