On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:55, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
The comments were saying that vandalism is rare on OSM
Wikipedia sensibly offers this advice:
clarification.
Then the risk that notes stay open for a long period since incompleted.
Pierre
-
DE : Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl
À : talk@openstreetmap.org
ENVOYÉ LE : Jeudi 12 février 2015 12h43
OBJET : Re: [OSM-talk] guide to vandalism in OSM?
On 2015-02-12 18:23
: talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : Vendredi 13 février 2015 9h50
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] guide to vandalism” in OSM?
After having looked at a few @osmthis notes, my conclusion is that it rarely
helps: the location of the note is not precise enough, and the photo cannot
help with finding
On 12 February 2015 at 13:55, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
The comments were saying that vandalism is rare on OSM
Wikipedia sensibly offers this advice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM, JB jb...@mailoo.org wrote:
Still wondering about this « presume good faith » thing. If every note
should be resurveyed on the ground, why not just replace the creator text
with « please come survey here » ?
I'm not saying it has to be necessarily resurveyed on
: talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : Jeudi 12 février 2015 12h43
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] guide to vandalism” in OSM?
On 2015-02-12 18:23, Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Michał Brzozowski
www.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
@Pieren: You switch topics so easily that I'm not sure what
Hi
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/archives/2388
Under 'Community' there a bullet point titled guide to vandalism” in OSM?
As my French is very poor, could someone translate expand on the
process. Why is false POI being added to notes? It seems similar to
entrapment from what is written.
Dave F.
On 12/02/2015 13:32, Dave F. wrote:
Thanks to both for the clarification. The way it was written it
implied bona fide editors were deliberately adding false POIs to catch
vandals.
I translated that bit; I added quotes to the German original and changed
the payoff to try and make it obvious
I happen to fix a lot of notes in Poland.
For me it would be impractical to check every POI that I add from notes.
Mind you, I do the research in the Internet if it's a feature that
could possibly have a website (fire station, church, restaurant,
supermarket etc), but the only way to check some
FYI, after reading this thread in the forum, I sent a message to the
registred user who converted the notes into POIs in OSM that he should
always verify first from a 2nd source what is reported by the note,
whatever the author is anonymous or not. The argument about most of
the notes are correct
No evidence. The comments were saying that vandalism is rare on OSM, that
the majority of the notes (and the mapping) is done in good faith, that a
small number of POIs added this way does not have a large impact, etc.
regards
p.s. I hope that I understood all comments correctly, French is not
On 2015-02-12 13:13, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/archives/2388
Under 'Community' there a bullet point titled guide to vandalism” in
OSM?
As my French is very poor, could someone translate expand on the
process. Why is false POI being added to notes? It seems similar to
Thanks to both for the clarification. The way it was written it implied
bona fide editors were deliberately adding false POIs to catch vandals.
Now that I understand, I'm not sure they should be considered vandals.
There appears to be no malice, just incompetence laziness.
Dave F.
On
On 12/02/2015 13:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
The author was not describing the mappers as vandals, but he was
pointing to the people that create such notes in the hope some lazy
mappers would create non-existing POIs or make other changes that do
not correspond to the reality.
Has he given
As far as I see it:
The author says that it is pretty easy to vandalise OSM data, even without
creating an account. You just have to make a note with some fake
information and wait until an armchair mapper picks up the note, does no
verification on the ground and adds the POI.
He shows 2 notes
+1.
Quite funny actually that the parallel discussion on « how we map »
clearly states :
In talking to other mappers, always ASSUME GOOD INTENTIONS.
and drew no bad attention, but does not seems to be accepted for the
notes mappers (meaning creators, as in « I don't know to map, adding a
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Michał Brzozowski: I happen to fix a lot
of notes in Poland.
For me it would be impractical to check every POI that I add from notes.
Mind you, I do the research in the Internet if it's a feature that
could possibly have a website (fire station, church,
I think the person who added these fake notes misses the point in how
OSM actually works.
Wouldn't be for the trust and assumption of good faith, there would be no OSM!
@Pieren: You switch topics so easily that I'm not sure what are you
talking about precisely. Is your stance Someone showed that
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
Therefore sometimes I simply assume good
faith which in my opinion *is* sensible.
That's where I disagree. If some registred user creates fake POI's
directly, he should be banned (first temporarily, with warnings etc)
On 2/12/2015 6:46 AM, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
I happen to fix a lot of notes in Poland.
For me it would be impractical to check every POI that I add from notes.
It's for this reason that notes say This note includes comments from
anonymous users which should be independently verified.
This
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
@Pieren: You switch topics so easily that I'm not sure what are you
talking about precisely. Is your stance Someone showed that it is
easy to add fake notes, therefore we must assume that every single POI
added from
On 2015-02-12 18:23, Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Michał Brzozowski
www.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
@Pieren: You switch topics so easily that I'm not sure what are you
talking about precisely. Is your stance Someone showed that it is
easy to add fake notes, therefore we must
22 matches
Mail list logo
