I've just read through http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy
and this thread, and here's my thoughts on the matter.
It is possible to improve OSM using only the data already within
OSM--with no external knowledge, survey, or other data sources. Typo
fixing and other similar activities do provide benefit.
When you make an edit using no external knowledge, you must always
discuss it first. In my opinion, not doing so--even for an edit that
turns out to be correct!--is a detriment to the community, because it is
both risky and antisocial.
I don't however agree with the policy's requirement of specific forms of
discussion. I think that the discussion required should be proportional
to the change being made. For example, if you notice that three
instances of "amenity=restuarant" were added this week, I think an
appropriate form of discussion would be to hop on IRC, say you're fixing
them, wait until someone says "yay" or 2 minutes has passed, and do it.
But as the risk goes up--either lower certainty or higher impact--the
required discussion should too, from IRC to a quick note on a mailing
list to long mailing list threads with wiki documentation and detailed
notes about methods and tools.
Similarly, in minor cases I don't agree with the policy's requirement
for documentation. If someone wants to merge the 10 copies of
"amenity=watering place" into the 1647 copies of
"amenity=watering_place", I don't think there will be any negative
impacts on consumers. But if consumers will be affected then
documentation should be a requirement. I think there should be
guidelines for how to document, and the community should decide (in the
required discussion!) which steps of the guidelines should be followed
in a specific case.
The existing requirements for execution look good to me.
When someone doesn't follow the policy, what should be done? In my
opinion, everyone SHOULD follow the policy, but if they don't the
community should be lenient, either doing nothing or giving gentle
reminders that the policy exists--until the person causes a problem with
their edits. At that point, the community should start holding the
person to a higher standard and insisting they follow the policy. If
someone who has caused problems before continues to not follow the
policy, then the community should bring the issue to the DWG.
That's my thougts,
--Andrew
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
