Hi, On 2017-04-21 08:18, Roland Olbricht wrote: > Thank you for keeping track of the issue. But I deem the summary > reflects neither the current situation nor the fidings of the discussion.
You are right, it was a legacy of how this page started. But now, it's misleading and the intro isn't enough to clarify that. So I changed the name, the new URL is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tuxayo/Automated_edits_code_of_conduct_and_DWG:_Follow_up_to_mailing_list_discussion_and_proposals Is that correct for you now? > Some key points: > > * There is no consent on what an automated edit is or not. Indeed, I thought it was not related to the topic but in fact it is. It seems a lot of disagreements are whether an edit is automated or not. > It is pretty clear that your example (changing all phone~"^http://" to > "https://" worldwide) is an automated edit. The grey cases are things > like the French buildings import, the MapRoulette challenge in the > Antartic region, and even the edit without local knowledge of Passau > main station (hence a pretty small changeset) of our company. > > All of these edits have at least made some data worse and have therefore > been discussed and partly fixed, partly kept for a reason. The fact that > the word "automated" did cause confusion gave rise to the > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organized_Editing_Policy Thanks a lot I didn't know there was such a policy. > The two extreme positions are > - Any edit without local knowledge is by its nature flawed. > - We regulate only edits run by a bot. > > I personally (or we as a company) do not endorse any of the two extremes. > > They key point is that to be productive you should: > - define and publish your own criterion (e.g. one of > -- changesets of unusual large extent > -- unusual high activity per tag and day > -- changesets having "revert" in their comment) > - give it a specific name and set up a watch tool for it These are interesting ideas for monitoring tools. > * The DWG is not so special as you might think > > The DWG members are indeed special in dedicating huge amounts of time to > fix human misbehaviour, and we should be grateful for that. The DWGs job > is communication, not pushing around data. > > Most of the actual reverting is done by mappers outside the DWG. That's good to hear, how do you know that? I though a lot of people would report issues to the DWG instead of reverting themselves. Maybe it's only the case so automated edits? > Also, > DWG members do not have any special rights. Moderation (and possibly > redaction) is essentially done by the sysadmins, not the DWG. Aren't DWG members moderators? Which means they have the permission to block an account. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Web_front_end#Moderators https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group#User_Blocks > I agree that from outside, the DWG activity is hard to judge. The > problem here is that nobody has found a magic solution how to make DWG > activity public without asking the DWG for substantially more work, Would an issue tracking system suits this situation? > damaging the reputation of involved mappers, or both. Oh, good point. That indeed seems to make this impossible to solve without magic :( > I therefore would suggest to make clear-cut rules: > > a) If you can decide freely what to map, where to map, and how to map > then OSM will trust all your edits that are based on local survey. Happy > mapping! > > b) If you are directed by an organization (regardless whether you are > paid or voluntary) then use a dedicated account and put a line on your > user profile, e.g.: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/drolbr_mdv > That organization should have a corresponding Wiki page, e.g.: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MENTZ_GmbH > > c) If you run a software where you do not approve as a human every > individual edit (every single change of a tag or change in geometry or > topology) then you need to follow the Automated Edits Code of Conduct > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct That's great. It seems very clear and I don't see much ambiguity. > This still leaves open the case of Armchair Mapping of all shades. Indeed, this shows that Armchair Mapping is orthogonal to the 3 above categories. > An example with net benefit for OSM is MapRoulette. Therefore I would > suggest to ask Martijn first for his best practices and then start to > make rules on that. Ask about what exactly? About how to avoid the issues with armchair mapping? Cheers, -- Victor Grousset/tuxayo _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk