Many contributors wrote: "Yay! I can haz 'Bots pleez!?!?" :-)
Dekkert replied, " 'Bots are like any other machine - they're either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem." Then he resignedly took a swig from his futuristic, Los Angeles 2023, drink and got into his flying car. Serge added: > And for those few exceptions where the expansion is wrong, a human > review process will turn this up and make it fairly correctable. In > fact, I'd argue that the problems won't be subtle, making them easy to > spot and fix. > > In return, we'll save hundreds, maybe thousands of man hours doing expansions. The previous bots were shouted down and all took the approach of finding things to change, then changing them. This sounds like a similar approach. Is there any benefit to finding the subtle, problematic abbreviations and highlighting them for manual intervention? Sort of an error overlay in the OSMI style, that highlights future expansion problems? If we find and fix the problem cases first, surely fixing the last rd --> Road batch will be easier and less error prone. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
