> From: Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) [mailto:ldeff...@homeside.to]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Harmless edits
>
> On 12/16/2011 4:14 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> >> From: Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) [mailto:ldeff...@homeside.to]
> >> Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Harmless edits
> >
On 12/16/2011 4:14 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
From: Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) [mailto:ldeff...@homeside.to]
Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Harmless edits
My opinion is that the agree-er's change of the (apparently, but who
knows for sure?) mis-spelling of the nmae= tag to name= brings the
information
> From: Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) [mailto:ldeff...@homeside.to]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Harmless edits
>
> My opinion is that the agree-er's change of the (apparently, but who
> knows for sure?) mis-spelling of the nmae= tag to name= brings the
> information into the re
My opinion is that the agree-er's change of the (apparently, but who
knows for sure?) mis-spelling of the nmae= tag to name= brings the
information into the realm of agreement by the adoption of the most
recent edit of the tag. It is the responsibility, I would think, of the
correcting user to
Andy,
On 12/16/2011 06:40 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
http://wtfe.gryph.de/harmless/way/9178258
suggests "This object remains problematic even after looking at harmless
edits."
Yes. The script is not clever enough to find out what you did. It would
have classed the non-agreer's change as harmless
Frederik Ramm wrote:
You can try out my script here, by adding a way/node/relation id to
the URL like so:
http://wtfe.gryph.de/harmless/way/40103577
Here's an oddity...
http://wtfe.gryph.de/harmless/way/9178258
suggests "This object remains problematic even after looking at harmless
edits
Am 03.12.2011 19:36, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
Hi,
On 12/03/2011 01:07 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
- is object deletion an operation that we consider trivial and not
worthy of protection. Wrong mailing list for that discussion, but if the
answer is "no" (unlikely IMHO) we would actually have to undo th
Hi,
On 12/03/2011 01:07 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
- is object deletion an operation that we consider trivial and not
worthy of protection. Wrong mailing list for that discussion, but if the
answer is "no" (unlikely IMHO) we would actually have to undo the deletions
And when a denier creates an ob
Am 03.12.2011 12:38, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
Hi,
On 12/03/2011 12:01 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
There is a small oddity: when a non-agreeing user deleted an object
then the script notes that down as a zero-edit and ignores the fact
that the object is gone. Example:
Indeed. While not relevant
Hi,
On 12/03/2011 12:01 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
There is a small oddity: when a non-agreeing user deleted an object
then the script notes that down as a zero-edit and ignores the fact
that the object is gone. Example:
Indeed. While not relevant for the kind of processing I had in mind
(colo
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:13:14AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>I have finalized a script that can analyze an object's history
> and determine if certain edits are "non-edits" (i.e. nothing of note
> was changed at all), or "harmess" (i.e. the object was changed and
> might have to be roll
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:13:14AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Everyone is invited to play with this script and see what happens. I
> plan to make this the basis of the v2 WTFE service, meaning that in
> the future editors will likely *not* highlight stuff that my script
> deems harmless.
>
> He
Hi,
I have finalized a script that can analyze an object's history and
determine if certain edits are "non-edits" (i.e. nothing of note was
changed at all), or "harmess" (i.e. the object was changed and might
have to be rolled back if the contributor does not agree to the license
change, b
13 matches
Mail list logo
