Thank you.
On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 10:55 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I would be careful interpreting the lack of objections to your
> automated
> edits in the local community as universal approval though. There
> are
> likely also locals who do not think this is a good idea but due to
> th
Thanks,
i think this is a constructive approach to automated edits and if
everyone worked this way i don't think we would have a problem.
In particular:
* your bot is well documented
* you discussed it with the local community
* it has a good supervision to editing volume ratio
* it runs only
Drudgery is evil, well written bots save us from drudgery, and allow us
to use human time more productively, therefore well written bots are
good.
Why should a human clean up whitespace, or add the "cuisine" tag to a
hundred "Burger King" branches? Shouldn't our creative brains invest
their time e
Speaking from my Wikipedia bot experience (I wrote bots and created
Wikipedia API over 10 years ago to help bots):
Bots were successful in Wikipedia because all users felt empowered. Users
could very easily see what the bot edited, fix or undo bot edits, and
easily communicate with the bot authors
True indeed. What this means, is that there can be a 'mismatch' between the
Wikipedia tag and the Wikidata tag, if the Wikidata tag is more specific
than what Wikipedia wants to create pages for.
It's normal that this happens, as both projects have a different notion of
notability. Aldi Nord and A
2017-10-06 10:10 GMT+02:00 Jo :
> What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with wikidata.
> If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped, then
> create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing entries.
>
it's actually not that easy. I tried
Or a bot=https://fancyurl.iou/lawyeredcontract.json
to clearly define what the bot can and cannot do?
Personally I think we need all the help we can get from automation, but it
needs to remain 'overseen' by an actual mapper.
That's why I like the todo list plugin in JOSM a lot. And why I try to
sent from a phone
> On 6. Oct 2017, at 06:02, Yves wrote:
>
> @JB, I understood the bot=no tag like the add=no sticker on your physical
> mailbox
yes, just like every active mapper having tens of thousands of mailboxes to
add stickers to. What about an opt in? Add a bot=yes if you want yo
On 06-Oct-17 02:37 PM, JB wrote:
Le 05/10/2017 à 22:50, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field -
"name:en:bot=no" - as long as those flags are not added by a bot :)
Ho…
We are now manually contributing one more tag to say it was
contribute
@JB, I understood the bot=no tag like the add=no sticker on your physical
mailbox.
Yves
Le 6 octobre 2017 05:37:37 GMT+02:00, JB a écrit :
>
>Le 05/10/2017 à 22:50, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
>> I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field -
>
>> "name:en:bot=no" - as lon
Le 05/10/2017 à 22:50, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field -
"name:en:bot=no" - as long as those flags are not added by a bot :)
Ho…
We are now manually contributing one more tag to say it was contributed
manually…
So many people seem to
I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field -
"name:en:bot=no" - as long as those flags are not added by a bot :)
Would it make sense, judging how wikidata* tags have been mostly auto-added
by iD, as well as user's bot efforts, including my own, to treat wikidata
explicitly
On Tuesday 03 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Did your proposal also extend to geoemtries? You said something about
> bot:* tags, but if a bot were to orthogonalize an existing building,
> would it then have to create a copy of that tagged
> "bot:building=yes"? And how could that be differenti
2017-10-03 2:25 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :
>
> Did your proposal also extend to geoemtries? You said something about
> bot:* tags, but if a bot were to orthogonalize an existing building,
> would it then have to create a copy of that tagged "bot:building=yes"?
>
is automatically orthogonalizing g
Hi,
On 02.10.2017 18:50, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Of course i am certainly not representative for the typical mappers. I
> would suspect there are probably mappers that would be attracted and
> motivated by an OSM project where bots routinely 'fix' data
> inconsistencies like typos in tags,
I would suggest simply adapting my old suggestion (for imports) that as long as
you fix the same number of elements from a broken import you can bot
edit/import to your hearts desire.
Totally serious :-)
Simon
On 2. Oktober 2017 16:58:02 MESZ, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>On Monday 02 October 20
Actually, if you find the way to keep a db handling a property (or tag) of OSM
element in sync with OSM, you have solved the need for UID. And if you happen
to do so without UID or API change , it's very nice !
Le 2 octobre 2017 15:59:48 GMT+02:00, Christoph Hormann a
écrit :
>
>With all the
ada to
continously see such negative messages about our work ;)
regard
Pierre
De : Christoph Hormann
À : talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : lundi 2 octobre 2017 12h53
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits
On Monday 02 October 2017, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I find this d
On Monday 02 October 2017, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at
> least as a hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits
> is and how it has grown
No, but i thought as well this would be an interesting thing to study.
Of cour
: Christoph Hormann
Cc : "talk@openstreetmap.org"
Envoyé le : lundi 2 octobre 2017 11h17
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits
I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at least as a
hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits is and how it ha
I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at least
as a hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits is and how it
has grown 2) how many mappers have actually given up based upon this? My
guess is that instead of coming up with a global solution, this could be
lef
On 02/10/17 15:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Of course considering the big volume of editing activity that would
> likely take place in the 'bot:' namespace in that scenario it might be
> a good idea to put those tags into a separate database for efficiency
> reasons.
>
> yes, k
On Monday 02 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in
> the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the
> planet file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to
> externalize the bot-tags. But how would y
2017-10-02 15:59 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
>
>
>
> Of course considering the big volume of editing activity that would
> likely take place in the 'bot:' namespace in that scenario it might be
> a good idea to put those tags into a separate database for efficiency
> reasons.
>
yes, keeping a
With all the recent endeavors to push more automated edits in OSM and
with the related rules and policies clearly failing (just look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Automated_edits_log and
compare that to what is actually taking place in terms of automated
edits these days) i j
25 matches
Mail list logo