On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:13:12PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Frederik: > > > I am appalled that after your abysmal OSM editing history where you more > > often than not ignored existing customs rules, while *claiming* to > > follow them, you're now building a service that entices others to do the > > same. > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:09 AM Christoph Hormann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is a tool to perform automated edits as per the automated edits > >> policy. A resposible developer of such a tool should inform its users > >> that making automated edits comes with certain requirements and that > >> not following these rules can result in changes being reverted and user > >> accounts being blocked. > >> > > > 2017-10-14 13:06 GMT+02:00 Yuri Astrakhan <[email protected]>: > > > Christoph, I looked around Osmose and MapRoulette, and I don't see any > > such warnings . Could you elaborate how you would like these kinds of tools > > to promote good editing practices? Any UI ideas? I'll be happy to improve > > our tools on making sure they meet community expectations. > > > > > I agree with Christoph and Frederik, that this is oviously a tool to > perform (crowdsourced) automated edits, and although it is designed in a > way to make them look like individual contributions, the automated editing > guidelines should apply. I agree with Yuri that there is also (to some > lesser extent, as the editing is not performed by the tool) some > problematic potential in other QA tools like Osmose or "remote batch > fixing" tools like MapRoulette.
it could be used as an automated editing tool but perhaps this was not the intention of the author? Because - if you wanted to do automated editing there are much easier and quicker methods. Of course therer are many ways the tool should be improved before it is used. Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
