Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

4. Lipiec 2018 08:38 od f...@zz.de : > Its a big spaghetti mess > and data consumers take whats documented and ignore misspellings. Users > have to fix it with discipline noticing the errors in data consumers > products. Thats been OSM for more than a decade. It turned

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Florian Lohoff wrote: > Have you ever dealt with OSM data from a software development > standpoint? > > There is no such thing as "database quality". Its a big spaghetti > mess and data consumers take whats documented and ignore > misspellings. Users have to fix it with discipline noticing the

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

4. Lipiec 2018 08:28 od f...@zz.de : > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:17:29PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> 3. Lipiec 2018 21:53 od >> f...@zz.de >> <>> >> mailto:f...@zz.de >> >: >> >> >> > IMHO fixing problems in the data

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

4. Lipiec 2018 08:28 od f...@zz.de : > I have myself always used > note=fixme ... > I would encourage you to use fixme tag (or FIXME tag if you really want) - note tag is rather about some nonobvious info, rather that statement that data is wrong and requires fixing.

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:07:42PM +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 03.07.2018 10:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Don't forget that new FIXMEs will continue to appear all the time. > > They will, but at a lower rate. Mappers often look at existing tagging > to find out how things should be tagged.

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:17:29PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 3. Lipiec 2018 21:53 od f...@zz.de : > > > > IMHO fixing problems in the data always start with fixing the cause > > why they are added in the first place. Otherwise you fix the current > > state but errors

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 21:53 od f...@zz.de : > IMHO fixing problems in the data always start with fixing the cause > why they are added in the first place. Otherwise you fix the current > state but errors start beeing added the minute you think you are "done". > That is one of

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 2018-07-03 22:07, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 03.07.2018 10:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: Software should be able to deal with both. In my opinion, software should not _need_ to deal with both. Working around easily fixed database quality issues is a waste of time. Good softwaredesign dictates

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 10:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Don't forget that new FIXMEs will continue to appear all the time. They will, but at a lower rate. Mappers often look at existing tagging to find out how things should be tagged. This is further reinforced by tools such as JOSM's autocompletion. Thus, I

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 07:42:16PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > fixme tag is a standard way to mark fixmes. > Editors wishing to finish mapping in their area would (directly or > indirectly, for example using JOSM) look through objects tagged with > fixme tags. > > FIXME tag is an unexpected

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi On 03/07/2018 13:27, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 03.07.2018 14:21, Dave F wrote: it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus not spoiling the history There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it will still be recorded in the history..  and

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03/07/2018 12:33, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 03.07.2018 12:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same meaning > I hoped that that in this case there will be no controversy at all and this minor duplication On 03.07.2018 12:52, Dave F

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03/07/18 13:21, Dave F wrote: Removes duplicated, reduces confusion, easier to search. A good Spring clean improves the database. I really think this fear of bulk edits has gone too far. I would probably ask just how many of the tags you think are duplicated? The point here is that there

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03/07/2018 11:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 3. Lipiec 2018 12:26 od t.pfei...@computer.org :  > Removing the FIXME tag reduces the learning curve for map editors. What specific skill is to be learned here? Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 14:21, Dave F wrote: it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus not spoiling the history There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it will still be recorded in the history.. It is a major difference! Doing the mechanical

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03/07/2018 12:35, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 03.07.2018 13:22, Dave F wrote: Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than individually? Doing it one by one still updates the last_modified attribute. it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi Maarten On 03/07/2018 10:38, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl: What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future? Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by edits. Then the

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 13:22, Dave F wrote: Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than individually? Doing it one by one still updates the last_modified attribute. it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus not spoiling the history with unnecessary

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 12:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same meaning > I hoped that that in this case there will be no controversy at all and this minor duplication On 03.07.2018 12:52, Dave F wrote: > All the editors need to be checked

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi Michael... On 03/07/2018 00:23, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi Mateusz, Am 02.07.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: Please comment - especially if there are any problems with this idea. Please also comment if you support this edit, in case of no response at all edit will not be made as

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi You beat me to it! I haven't read the whole thread. I came across this irritating anomaly last week & thought it would be good to update. That there are entities with both variations indicates a problem within the database & is not a valid reason to not amend. All the editors need to be

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 12:26 od t.pfei...@computer.org : >  > Removing the FIXME tag reduces the learning curve for map editors. > What specific skill is to be learned here? Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same meaning. > On

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 11:48, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: see http://taghistory.raifer.tech It [FIXME] was quickly growing up to 2013, slowed later and and since 2017 usage is decreasing. Fine, so let it die peacefully. Interestingly, 'FIXME' behaves more naturally, while 'fixme' shows a lot of import

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 04:33, Jason Remillard wrote:> ... and I was quite surprised to find that FIXME> (an invalid key) was so prevalent in the database. Who declared the uppercase version invalid? Where is the discussion to deprecate it? The English fixme wiki page still declares "Alternate forms

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 11:38 od md...@xs4all.nl : > On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> 3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od >> md...@xs4all.nl >> : >> >>> What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future? >> >> Nothing, users may add any tags.

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl: What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future? Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by edits. Then the proposed mechanical edit is useless. It will have to be

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl : > What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future? Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by edits.   > What happens to the tools that read FIXME tags in the meanwhile? Tools that

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03/07/18 09:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 02.07.2018 19:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: It would make development of QA tools easier as authors would not need to discover and implement support for this duplicated key. I think the downsides of such a large mechanical edit far outweigh the

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Ed wrote: > though perhaps notes make more sense than hiding things in tags and instead > of changing case the proposal should be to extract the FIXME's to notes to > increase their visibility. For me notes are often much less informative than fixme tags. Because the fixme tag is on the

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 2018-07-03 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Now that I know about existence of FIXME tag I can add support for it in my tools at 1% of cost of going through mechanical edit. The entire point is not to support may particular usecase, the point is to save people in future from spending time on

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi, On 02.07.2018 19:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > It would make development of QA tools easier as authors would not need to > discover and implement support for this duplicated key. I think the downsides of such a large mechanical edit far outweigh the advantages. Don't forget that new FIXMEs

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Mateusz wrote: > Also, OSM Inspector anyway is not useful at all for offline tag listing on > map > during survey, on a phone (my particular usecase). Funnily enough I've added FIXME tags when out surveying with my phone (Vespucci). FIXME pre-dates the fixme wiki proposal (if you dig out the

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

3. Lipiec 2018 01:23 od osm...@michreichert.de : > > What's the benefit in this mechanical edit? It just sets the > last_modified attribute to a recent date and data consumers, mappers and > QA tools get the impression that the object is not old. > - removes

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

I second Tom and Mikael, maybe a kind of rédaction to keep the date could be done? Not sure it's worth the effort though. Yves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi, I support this edit. This spring, I was working on changeset validation code and I was quite surprised to find that FIXME (an invalid key) was so prevalent in the database. I had to collect a bunch of extra validation changesets with the FIXME tag present to train the neural network that an

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03.07.2018 01:23, Michael Reichert wrote: There are 177,152 FIXME and 1,216,043 fixme according to Taginfo. I did not have a closer look on the average age of FIXMEs and fixmes. What's the benefit in this mechanical edit? It just sets the last_modified attribute to a recent date and data

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi Mateusz, Am 02.07.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Please comment - especially if there are any problems with this idea. > Please also comment if you support this edit, in case of no response > at all edit will not be made as there would be no evidence that > this idea is supported.

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 2 July 2018 at 18:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > FIXME tag is an unexpected way to mark fixmes, retagging this duplicate to > fixme key would improve tagging without any information loss. Support. Very sensible move. I may in the past have used the later version; I'd be grateful if such tags

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

2. Lipiec 2018 19:49 od james2...@gmail.com : > are there any overlap with FIXME and fixme as in an object tagged with both? Yes. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/A0y As described in

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Should we ask for validation steps in editors to flag FIXME as a likely tagging mistake going forwards? -- Andrew From: Mateusz Konieczny Sent: 02 July 2018 18:42 To: Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=* fixme tag

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

are there any overlap with FIXME and fixme as in an object tagged with both? Is it possible or the osm API considers them the same(case insensitive)? If there are no overlaps I dont see an issue tagging this the proper way On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 1:44 PM Mateusz Konieczny, wrote: > fixme tag is a

[OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

fixme tag is a standard way to mark fixmes. Editors wishing to finish mapping in their area would (directly or indirectly, for example using JOSM) look through objects tagged with fixme tags. FIXME tag is an unexpected way to mark fixmes, retagging this duplicate to fixme key would improve