Steve All wrote:
Now, when and how will this bot run? Over the entire planet.osm?
In something like one-degree of latitude at a time swaths? (That's
just a guess). Can you sense my frustration when I feel like I
should be able to just go and find these things out (maybe in a
big,
On 6/6/2012 4:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Without some object IDs it is hard to say exactly what blars did. If
you have some specific examples, select them in JOSM and hit
CTRL-SHIFT-I to open a browser window with a link you can send to the
list. A lot of what I saw in LA looked like legitimate
On 5 June 2012 20:56, stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com wrote:
But socially, or more properly stated, in the context of reaching OSM
consensus, what does our community think of (rather wholesale)
reverts of a
contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that? Apologies
On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
But socially, or more properly stated, in the context of reaching OSM
consensus, what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?
This
I kind of doubt reverting changesets would work out very well.
Reverting a changeset becomes more difficult as time goes on and
things in that changeset are touched by other users. Then you get into
conflicts and other odd situations that are hard to handle.
I did some remapping in LA from TIGER
On 6 June 2012 09:07, Steve All steve...@softworkers.com wrote:
andrzej replied:
Is it a pressing issue though? Mike N already said this, but the
license redaction algorithm is being designed to do no more damage
than a revert of the tainted edits, with the exception of undeletions
I have been working on the LA remap, which mostly involves
correcting thousands and thousands of edits by a user named blars.
The odd thing about the edits that blars did is that they
seem to have been done almost robotically. Although many
intersections have been changed enough to be marked
On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
But socially, or more properly stated, in the context of reaching OSM
consensus, what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?
This nearly
Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts, and I hope others in the community
will share their views. My view would be that it should be OK to do
such a reverse if the person has not signed the new license,
particularly when there has been such an enormous number of questionable edits.
Given the earlier statements regarding alignment, etc, of the road
vectors, and the seemingly large amount of work to revert these
changes, perhaps an incremental replacement of road geometry with
TIGER 2011 data along with manual conflation of existing attributes
is a more effective
It seems we are speaking on many levels here.
NE2 talks of a redaction bot: powerful scripting so intelligent it
is not quite yet built (scripting coupled with lack of consensus
isn't power). Charlotte, a seriously dedicated user, wants to reduce
skull-aching editing, clearly seeing a
Perhaps some who know JOSM could take a look at the most recent
uploads by blars to see what the effect of reverting those changes would be.
At 07:36 PM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
It seems we are speaking on many levels here.
NE2 talks of a redaction bot: powerful scripting so intelligent it
Charlotte Wolter wrote:
Perhaps some who know JOSM could take a look at the most recent
uploads by blars to see what the effect of reverting those changes
would be.
At 07:36 PM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
It seems we are speaking on many levels here.
NE2 talks of a redaction bot: powerful
13 matches
Mail list logo
