On 18 Aug 2009, at 20:08, Teemu Koskinen wrote: > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:48:03 +0300, andrzej zaborowski <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> 2009/8/18 Peter Miller <[email protected]>: >>> On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:57, Teemu Koskinen wrote: >>>> Could somebody please revert this changeset: >>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2168210 >>>> >>>> The moving of the nodes across the Atlantic is obviously wrong. >>> >>> Do check out this page for guidance and the email address for >>> requests >>> to the data working group. >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism >>> > > I don't think this case was deliberate vandalism, other edits from > the user seems to be good.
An important distinction. The vandalism page does already make the distinction but no one is disputing the need to revert such a change- set. > >>> Note that I have been working on this page today and have added a >>> section for 'speedy response' in cases where a failure to respond >>> within hours could lead to highly visible damage to the rendered >>> maps >>> or changes in sensitive areas (for example Washington - particularly >>> sensitive given the support and visibility given to OSM by the >>> Whitehouse). >> >> Note that most incorrect edits spanning more than a few nodes need a >> speedy response because soon people start making edits on top of the >> unwanted changeset and reverting it becomes more difficult. >> > > What we need, as has been previously discussed on the list, is a > similar mechanism that wikipedia has that will revert an edit > easily, maybe even from the website ui. Agreed. It is worth noting that a lot of the anti-vandalism tools and general data improvement tools for Wikipedia have been developed and are made available independently from the main project. Undo is core to the Wikipedia project and I think we need such a button to revert a change-set in the UI. I would support the inclusion of undo and rollback into the general toolset, but possibly have the feature only available to 'established' users, ie ones who have made >x edits over >y days. Wikipedia has some functions, such as image upload and edits to much-vandalised pages, that are limited to 'established' users. Possibly it is the same concept and definition of being 'established' that makes one eligible to vote at the AGM. > >> Since I had the setup for this ready, I reverted the changeset >> 2168210 >> in my changeset >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2192016 >> but I had to make a couple of edits before uploading it: >> >> * xybot had helpfully made an edit on top of some of the nodes >> removing a spurious tag and causing conflicts. >> * I did not revert the creation of node 469327157 (a parking) which >> seems genuine. >> * Something really strange: node >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/270798013/history is edited >> two times inside the same changesets and revert.pl didn't deal >> correctly with this. >> > > There still seems to be some problem, the way > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39175980 > still goes across the Atlantic, but it looks different than before. > > >>> >>> Personally I think we need a huge effort to be ready for damaging >>> vandalism and much better tools to spot potential errors in a much >>> more sophisticated way. >> >> Agreed. >> > > I spotted this with the Geofabriks OSM Inspector, but that's still a > bit too slow to update, it would be much better if it updated at > least hourly or even from the minute diffs. > > The revert tools should also be made to look what exactly was > modified in the changeset. Eg. if a node was moved, but tags were > left untouched, and after that someone else modified only the tags > but didn't move the node, reverting the first change should only > move the node back to it's original position and not change the tags > back as those were changed by someone else. Agreed - I see no reason why people can't write tools that use the minutely diffs and monitor for edits by people not on a 'white list', that are possible block shifts of many nodes, that have text fields that contain dubious content, that have very long ways, that include un-tagged ways (santa-trails), name changes for well established features (ie roads that have been called 'High Street' for 2 years and suddenly become something else, broken areas etc etc. Regards, Peter > > > Teemu Koskinen _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
