Joseph, we are mixing multiple issues: interface and the actual tasks. Sophox interface is very similar to MapRoulette and Osmose in terms of viewing issues. You see issues everywhere on the planet, and you are invited to edit them anywhere you like.
The "pick from choices" approach is also not new. Tools like osm.wikidata.link offer users a selection of choices, and allows to pick the right match. Sophox goes a step beyond that, allowing disputed tasks to have votes in addition to editing directly. To demo the tool, I wrote a few tasks based on JOSM validations and deprecation list. But they can be anything, suggested by anyone in the community. This is again similar to MapRoulette, where anyone can create a challenge, and that challenge is not restricted to a location. If you disagree that these specific challenges should exist - sure, that would be a valid argument. As long as we don't single out a specific tool, but rather say "challenges such as X should not exist in any of the tools. Challenges such as Y are ok." On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Joseph Reeves <iknowjos...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Andy, as I stated before, JOSM doesn't force you to edit in your area - > it shows you whatever data you download." > > This isn't quite true, or rather, you're not understanding how people map. > > JOSM will let you edit any data in the world, but you have to be > interested in that area first: I can be sat in England and download a > village on the other side of the world, but I have to go and do it. > > So if I fix up errors in JOSM in a geographic area that I'm not currently > sat it, it's because I have an interest in that geographic area, not in > JOSM validation rules. > > There is no "random page" button in JOSM. > > Wikipedia would be different: it's easy to see differences in Wikipedia > between content and grammar, so you could easily swap out every mention of > "color" for "colour" on en-gb pages whilst leaving the subject matter > coherent. > > You seem to be confusing the content and the grammar of OSM and have > provided a tool to make changes world wide - outside of people's areas of > geographic interest or expertise - that is at risk of damaging the actual > OSM "subject". > > From reading most of the posts in these interminable threads it appears > that you do not understand how OSM, and the people that make it, actually > works. > > This is ok; personally I'm not interested in Wikipedia editing, so I > don't. I don't want to apply OSM style practices to Wikipedia as I know > there's a whole world of people there doing their own thing. It doesn't > have to go both ways. > > In short, I have looked at your tool and don't think it is currently > beneficial to the OSM ecosystem. The discussions ongoing here suggest it > won't ever be. > > Thanks, Joseph > > > > > On 13 Nov 2017 21:22, "Yuri Astrakhan" <yuriastrak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 13/11/2017 19:36, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: >> >> > That's why I think Sophox is a much better and safer alternative to >> JOSM's autofixes. >> >> At the risk of repeating something that's been said multiple times >> previously, with JOSM autofixes you're performing edits in an area where >> you've already edited. You're presumably somewhat familiar with what's >> there (you may even have actually visited in person and seen what it looks >> like on the ground). With your "tool" you're simply performing a mechanical >> edit with no experience of the underlying data. >> > > Andy, as I stated before, JOSM doesn't force you to edit in your area - it > shows you whatever data you download. OverpassT can provide it to JOSM > anywhere too. Your query in Sophox can be limited to an area, or can be > anywhere - it all depends on the task's query. Also, you keep misusing the > word "mechanical edit" (per wiki definition, see my other email). Don't > dilute the term. > > My main point remains - doing a "by-the-way fixing" is worse than > dedicated effort to fix one issue at a time. Tagging experts who studied > specific issue, and who reviewed all relevant wiki notes and comment are > better than a local user who auto-accepts all JOSM-suggested fixes because > they sound reasonable, but who might have missed all the nuances of the > specific tag change. This makes it unrevertable and impossible to find. > Also, it's bad because if a user doesn't accept them, a subsequent editor > eventually will. Local expertise needs to be balanced with tagging task > expertise - and sorry, there is no unicorn, who knows both perfectly. > > In Rory's example - you cannot find who changed what in the past 16 months > for the bathroom autofix. You cannot revert it, because it is mixed with > others. My tool solves that, because experts can review it, and later > experts in that specific issue can review all found cases, and spot > errors. Even if one person doing a Sophox task spots an error and tags it > as invalid, we can easily notice it and adjust or remove the task, and > easily revert all changes made for that task. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
