A thought on bot edits

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A thought on bot edits

Christoph Hormann-2

With all the recent endeavors to push more automated edits in OSM and
with the related rules and policies clearly failing (just look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Automated_edits_log and
compare that to what is actually taking place in terms of automated
edits these days) i just had the idea that it might be a lot easier and
better if we replace all current regulations of automated edits with a
simple rule:

Automated edits of any kind may freely add or edit tags with keys
starting with 'bot:' but may not under any circumstances touch any
other tags.

This way people could go crazy bot editing whatever they want in that
namespace but would not interfere with manual mapping activity and data
consumers could choose freely if the want bot edited information and if
they do if they want to give it priority over manually verified data.  
And mappers could configure their editors to hide the bot tags if they
are not interested in them.

Of course considering the big volume of editing activity that would
likely take place in the 'bot:' namespace in that scenario it might be
a good idea to put those tags into a separate database for efficiency
reasons.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

dieterdreist


2017-10-02 15:59 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>:



Of course considering the big volume of editing activity that would
likely take place in the 'bot:' namespace in that scenario it might be
a good idea to put those tags into a separate database for efficiency
reasons.


yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the planet file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to externalize the bot-tags. But how would you link one db to the other? If people don't see those tags (or only by request), their edits will erode the information in this external db (e.g. by splitting ways, deleting and redrawing parts, combining ways, etc.). What about versions, will there be different versions of the same object in the main db and this bot db? Is this a serious suggestion or just another way of saying there are too many automated activities going on?

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Christoph Hormann-2
On Monday 02 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
> yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in
> the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the
> planet file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to
> externalize the bot-tags. But how would you link one db to the other?
> If people don't see those tags (or only by request), their edits will
> erode the information in this external db (e.g. by splitting ways,
> deleting and redrawing parts, combining ways, etc.). What about
> versions, will there be different versions of the same object in the
> main db and this bot db? Is this a serious suggestion or just another
> way of saying there are too many automated activities going on?

It is a serious idea although i don't seriously expect this to be
implemented any time soon.  Less for technical reasons as you mentioned
but for social reasons.  A huge part of the interest in making bot
edits stems from the idea to have the OSM community as cheap labour to
clean up after the bots and if you remove that incentive a lot of
motivation for making bot edits vanishes.

Linking a separate bot editing database to the main OSM database is not
that difficult in principle as long as we are only talking about tag
modifications on the bot side.  You would simply have a separate and
separately versioned 'bot tags' object for every object that has bot
tags.  Of course if bots should also be able to make geometry edits you
would need rules for that - like bots may only edit geometries that
have no tag starting with something other than 'bot:' and that are not
member of a way or relation with tags other than 'bot:*'.  This would
then essentially mean any geometry edits by bots stay within the bot
database which would make things easier (you would have a 'bot tags'
table plus supplemental bot only geometries tables).

That is of course all theoretical.  The more likely scenarios what will
happen if bot editing activities spread even further are probably

a) That more and more craft mappers get fed up with bots messing with
their work and manual editing activity declines overall -> OSM transits
into a primarily bot maintained database.
b) The craft mappers get fed up with the bots and decide to separate out
their work instead of that of the bots in form of some protection
(could be as simple as adding a 'bot=no' tag to features allowing
mappers to indicate 'bots may not touch this object i have just
mapped').

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

lsces
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 02/10/17 15:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>     Of course considering the big volume of editing activity that would
>     likely take place in the 'bot:' namespace in that scenario it might be
>     a good idea to put those tags into a separate database for efficiency
>     reasons.
>
> yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in
> the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the planet
> file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to externalize the
> bot-tags. But how would you link one db to the other? If people don't
> see those tags (or only by request), their edits will erode the
> information in this external db (e.g. by splitting ways, deleting and
> redrawing parts, combining ways, etc.). What about versions, will there
> be different versions of the same object in the main db and this bot db?
> Is this a serious suggestion or just another way of saying there are too
> many automated activities going on?

There are many reasons for wanting unique id's IN OSM that can be used
to cross reference external databases. Add to your list archiving
historic versions of the objects, something that should be automated
into OHM. So there should be serious consideration of the idea but what
section of tags should be moved to a separate database?

There is a good case for using wikidata to provide a higher level of
hierarchy such as street names, and all of the place data that overlays
that, so OSM only needs to use the wikidata namespace for all of that
material. I don't think that the idea of 'bot' space actually fits into
that model as it is the unique ID that is fixed and 'bot' tags either
need to be accessible in 'mapping' space, or remain in the secondary
data space.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2

I would suggest simply adapting my old suggestion (for imports) that as long as you fix the same number of elements from a broken import you can bot edit/import to your hearts desire.

Totally serious :-)

Simon



On 2. Oktober 2017 16:58:02 MESZ, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in
the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the
planet file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to
externalize the bot-tags. But how would you link one db to the other?
If people don't see those tags (or only by request), their edits will
erode the information in this external db (e.g. by splitting ways,
deleting and redrawing parts, combining ways, etc.). What about
versions, will there be different versions of the same object in the
main db and this bot db? Is this a serious suggestion or just another
way of saying there are too many automated activities going on?

It is a serious idea although i don't s! eriously expect this to be
implemented any time soon. Less for technical reasons as you mentioned
but for social reasons. A huge part of the interest in making bot
edits stems from the idea to have the OSM community as cheap labour to
clean up after the bots and if you remove that incentive a lot of
motivation for making bot edits vanishes.

Linking a separate bot editing database to the main OSM database is not
that difficult in principle as long as we are only talking about tag
modifications on the bot side. You would simply have a separate and
separately versioned 'bot tags' object for every object that has bot
tags. Of course if bots should also be able to make geometry edits you
would need rules for that - like bots may only edit geometries that
have no tag starting with something other than 'bot:' and that are not
member of a way or relation with tags other than 'bot:*'. This would
then essentially mean any geometry edits by bots stay within the bot
database which would make things easier (you would have a 'bot tags'
table plus supplemental bot only geometries tables).

That is of course all theoretical. The more likely scenarios what will
happen if bot editing activities spread even further are probably

a) That more and more craft mappers get fed up with bots messing with
their work and manual editing activity declines overall -> OSM transits
into a primarily bot maintained database.
b) The craft mappers get fed up with the bots and decide to separate out
their work instead of that of the bots in form of some protection
(could be as simple as adding a 'bot=no' tag to features allowing
mappers to indicate 'bots may not touch this object i have just
mapped').

--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Martijn van Exel-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at least as a hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits is and how it has grown 2) how many mappers have actually given up based upon this? My guess is that instead of coming up with a global solution, this could be left to the local communities to decide. For example, where I live (USA) there does not seem to be as much resistance to automated edits to make such a change desirable / necessary. The effect of introducing a new tagging requirement for, or even entirely separating out automated edits into a different database, may have a different (or even an opposite) effect in communities that look more favorably upon these types of edits.
Martijn

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> yes, keeping a lot of additional tags for a huge amount of objects in
> the main db would still be a burden on everyone working with the
> planet file or geographic extracts, so it seems logical to
> externalize the bot-tags. But how would you link one db to the other?
> If people don't see those tags (or only by request), their edits will
> erode the information in this external db (e.g. by splitting ways,
> deleting and redrawing parts, combining ways, etc.). What about
> versions, will there be different versions of the same object in the
> main db and this bot db? Is this a serious suggestion or just another
> way of saying there are too many automated activities going on?

It is a serious idea although i don't seriously expect this to be
implemented any time soon.  Less for technical reasons as you mentioned
but for social reasons.  A huge part of the interest in making bot
edits stems from the idea to have the OSM community as cheap labour to
clean up after the bots and if you remove that incentive a lot of
motivation for making bot edits vanishes.

Linking a separate bot editing database to the main OSM database is not
that difficult in principle as long as we are only talking about tag
modifications on the bot side.  You would simply have a separate and
separately versioned 'bot tags' object for every object that has bot
tags.  Of course if bots should also be able to make geometry edits you
would need rules for that - like bots may only edit geometries that
have no tag starting with something other than 'bot:' and that are not
member of a way or relation with tags other than 'bot:*'.  This would
then essentially mean any geometry edits by bots stay within the bot
database which would make things easier (you would have a 'bot tags'
table plus supplemental bot only geometries tables).

That is of course all theoretical.  The more likely scenarios what will
happen if bot editing activities spread even further are probably

a) That more and more craft mappers get fed up with bots messing with
their work and manual editing activity declines overall -> OSM transits
into a primarily bot maintained database.
b) The craft mappers get fed up with the bots and decide to separate out
their work instead of that of the bots in form of some protection
(could be as simple as adding a 'bot=no' tag to features allowing
mappers to indicate 'bots may not touch this object i have just
mapped').

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

pierzen
We often see critics about Bots and import accounts. Should we oppose crafters vs Bots? Who are crafters, who are Bots?  I suspect that they often can be the same ;) from the few thousand intensely active OSM contributors. And not all imports or Bots harm our database content. For an informed decision we simply need to know better about these Bots and Imports. 

To compile statististices about the OSM Contributors profiles, I am actually going through the http://planet.osm.org/replication/changesets/. Not easy to identify Bots and Imports from the Changesets metadata. Before 2012, there was no specific account for imports. And since 2012, you often have to read the contributors user profile from the OSM API to verify if this is an import account since not all use a prefix or suffix with import. 

For Bots, you can try to identify the user name that contains words such as Bot, mechanical, repair, fix, etc. But this is relatively imprecise.  You can also searh the Changesets metadata to see reference to Bot Edit sessions.

If somebody knows a better way to identify Import accounts and Bots, I am interested about that.
 
Pierre



De : Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]>
À : Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>
Cc : "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Envoyé le : lundi 2 octobre 2017 11h17
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at least as a hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits is and how it has grown 2) how many mappers have actually given up based upon this? My guess is that instead of coming up with a global solution, this could be left to the local communities to decide. For example, where I live (USA) there does not seem to be as much resistance to automated edits to make such a change desirable / necessary. The effect of introducing a new tagging requirement for, or even entirely separating out automated edits into a different database, may have a different (or even an opposite) effect in communities that look more favorably upon these types of edits.
Martijn


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3
On Monday 02 October 2017, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at
> least as a hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits
> is and how it has grown

No, but i thought as well this would be an interesting thing to study.  
Of course you would need to make some definition of what a bot edit is
that can be automatically analyzed - which is difficult.  But even a
hairy definition might allow to identify rough trends.

There is little doubt that the volume of bot edits has grown recently
but if it has actually grown much faster than the manual editing volume
overall is not easy to determine.  I mostly look at remote areas and
there the raise in dominance of automated editing activities is massive
but the manual editing activity in these areas has always been small
and sporadic so this is certainly not an observation you can
extrapolate to the whole.

> 2) how many mappers have actually given up
> based upon this?

Again i can only answer this based on my own experience and

a) I am unmotivated to map in areas where imports are in progress or
regularly taking place (yes, i am talking about Canada).
b) My primary motivation for mapping in OSM is that what i map gets
improved by other craft mappers so what we produce together is better
than what each of us can produce on our own.  If the only changes that
are going to be made to my mapping work after i upload it to OSM are
made by bots there would be no results from that that would be any
better than what i could produce on my own because i could simply run
the bots on my own privately mapped data.

Of course i am certainly not representative for the typical mappers.  I
would suspect there are probably mappers that would be attracted and
motivated by an OSM project where bots routinely 'fix' data
inconsistencies like typos in tags, different spellings of common names
or automatically orthogonalize building geometries.  But there are
others who don't like this.  One motivation behind my suggestion was
that this would allow mappers to embrace bot edits but also allows them
to reject this and decide they only want to interact with other craft
mappers and not with bots.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

pierzen
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> a) I am unmotivated to map in areas where imports are in progress or
> regularly taking place (yes, i am talking about Canada).

We often see such reactions (what is good, what is bad) without any analysis of the situation.

Do you know Canada, have you tried to measure the effort to map the millions of lakes, the efforts to spot nordic villages, roads, industrie, tourism activities spread over a huge territory and where this is not the priority to provide new high resolution maps? 

This is quite demotivating for us working hard to map north of Canada to continously see such negative messages about our work ;)
 
regard

Pierre



De : Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>
À : [hidden email]
Envoyé le : lundi 2 octobre 2017 12h53
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

On Monday 02 October 2017, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I find this discussion and your proposal interesting to explore, at
> least as a hypothetical. Do we know 1) what the volume of bot edits
> is and how it has grown

No, but i thought as well this would be an interesting thing to study. 
Of course you would need to make some definition of what a bot edit is
that can be automatically analyzed - which is difficult.  But even a
hairy definition might allow to identify rough trends.

There is little doubt that the volume of bot edits has grown recently
but if it has actually grown much faster than the manual editing volume
overall is not easy to determine.  I mostly look at remote areas and
there the raise in dominance of automated editing activities is massive
but the manual editing activity in these areas has always been small
and sporadic so this is certainly not an observation you can
extrapolate to the whole.

> 2) how many mappers have actually given up
> based upon this?

Again i can only answer this based on my own experience and

a) I am unmotivated to map in areas where imports are in progress or
regularly taking place (yes, i am talking about Canada).
b) My primary motivation for mapping in OSM is that what i map gets
improved by other craft mappers so what we produce together is better
than what each of us can produce on our own.  If the only changes that
are going to be made to my mapping work after i upload it to OSM are
made by bots there would be no results from that that would be any
better than what i could produce on my own because i could simply run
the bots on my own privately mapped data.

Of course i am certainly not representative for the typical mappers.  I
would suspect there are probably mappers that would be attracted and
motivated by an OSM project where bots routinely 'fix' data
inconsistencies like typos in tags, different spellings of common names
or automatically orthogonalize building geometries.  But there are
others who don't like this.  One motivation behind my suggestion was
that this would allow mappers to embrace bot edits but also allows them
to reject this and decide they only want to interact with other craft
mappers and not with bots.


--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Yves
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
Actually, if you find the way to keep a db handling a property (or tag) of OSM element in sync with OSM, you have solved the need for UID. And if you happen to do so without UID or API change , it's very nice !


Le 2 octobre 2017 15:59:48 GMT+02:00, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> a écrit :

With all the recent endeavors to push more automated edits in OSM and
with the related rules and policies clearly failing (just look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Automated_edits_log and
compare that to what is actually taking place in terms of automated
edits these days) i just had the idea that it might be a lot easier and
better if we replace all current regulations of automated edits with a
simple rule:

Automated edits of any kind may freely add or edit tags with keys
starting with 'bot:' but may not under any circumstances touch any
other tags.

This way people could go crazy bot editing whatever they want in that
namespace but would not interfere with manual mapping activity and data
consumers could choose freely if the want bot edited information and if
they do if they want to give it priority over manually verified data.
And mappers could configure their editors to hide the bot tags if they
are not interested in them.

Of course considering the big volume of editing activity that would
likely take place in the 'bot:' namespace in that scenario it might be
a good idea to put those tags into a separate database for efficiency
reasons.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
Hi,

On 02.10.2017 18:50, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Of course i am certainly not representative for the typical mappers.  I
> would suspect there are probably mappers that would be attracted and
> motivated by an OSM project where bots routinely 'fix' data
> inconsistencies like typos in tags, different spellings of common names
> or automatically orthogonalize building geometries.  But there are
> others who don't like this.  One motivation behind my suggestion was
> that this would allow mappers to embrace bot edits but also allows them
> to reject this and decide they only want to interact with other craft
> mappers and not with bots.

Did your proposal also extend to geoemtries? You said something about
bot:* tags, but if a bot were to orthogonalize an existing building,
would it then have to create a copy of that tagged "bot:building=yes"?
And how could that be differentiated from a building that originally had
building=YES and the bot only lowercased the tag value?

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

dieterdreist
2017-10-03 2:25 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]>:

Did your proposal also extend to geoemtries? You said something about
bot:* tags, but if a bot were to orthogonalize an existing building,
would it then have to create a copy of that tagged "bot:building=yes"?


is automatically orthogonalizing geometry something that people actually do right now, maybe even on a global level? I'd consider it harmful, and would propose to revert these edits (as there hasn't been any announcement/discussion about it like requested by the guidelines). Or was this just a hypothetical case? Similarly, applying Douglas-Peucker will always reduce detail (that's why it is used in the end), if there are curves the detail, even if subtile, is generally wanted (the straighter the curves are, the bigger the loss).

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
On Tuesday 03 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Did your proposal also extend to geoemtries? You said something about
> bot:* tags, but if a bot were to orthogonalize an existing building,
> would it then have to create a copy of that tagged
> "bot:building=yes"? And how could that be differentiated from a
> building that originally had building=YES and the bot only lowercased
> the tag value?

My original idea was only about tags but it could be extended to
geometries of course - as i sketched in my reply to Martin, which would
essentially mean creating a copy for the building a bot orthogonalizes
if the building already has a manual building=yes tag.  If the bot only
changes the tag the building would remain a normal hand mapped geometry
but would get a bot:building=yes in addition to the building=YES.

Of course duplicating geometry data would make it much more difficult
for data users to make decisions about selectively using data and it
would make it much more difficult for editors to allow mappers to edit
the data correctly.  This is why i originally suggested this only for
tags - after all the vast majority of bot edits are tag modifications
only, geometry edits by bots are technically much more complicated to
do right so they happen less frequently.

As already said - if this approach is not considered favorably it is
always possible to use the other method and forbid bots to touch
anything with a bot=no tag and thereby allow mappers to opt out of bot
edits on a case-by-case basis.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Yuri Astrakhan-2
I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field -  "name:en:bot=no" - as long as those flags are not added by a bot :)

Would it make sense, judging how wikidata* tags have been mostly auto-added by iD, as well as user's bot efforts, including my own, to treat wikidata explicitly as a bot tag?  In a way, it is already being treated as such by many - why not make it official?

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:55 AM Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tuesday 03 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Did your proposal also extend to geoemtries? You said something about
> bot:* tags, but if a bot were to orthogonalize an existing building,
> would it then have to create a copy of that tagged
> "bot:building=yes"? And how could that be differentiated from a
> building that originally had building=YES and the bot only lowercased
> the tag value?

My original idea was only about tags but it could be extended to
geometries of course - as i sketched in my reply to Martin, which would
essentially mean creating a copy for the building a bot orthogonalizes
if the building already has a manual building=yes tag.  If the bot only
changes the tag the building would remain a normal hand mapped geometry
but would get a bot:building=yes in addition to the building=YES.

Of course duplicating geometry data would make it much more difficult
for data users to make decisions about selectively using data and it
would make it much more difficult for editors to allow mappers to edit
the data correctly.  This is why i originally suggested this only for
tags - after all the vast majority of bot edits are tag modifications
only, geometry edits by bots are technically much more complicated to
do right so they happen less frequently.

As already said - if this approach is not considered favorably it is
always possible to use the other method and forbid bots to touch
anything with a bot=no tag and thereby allow mappers to opt out of bot
edits on a case-by-case basis.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

jbosm

Le 05/10/2017 à 22:50, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
> I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field -  
> "name:en:bot=no" - as long as those flags are not added by a bot :)
Ho…
We are now manually contributing one more tag to say it was contributed
manually…
So many people seem to think one geodatabase can be created only through
bots, imports, etc… why not go create it?
JB.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Yves
@JB, I understood the bot=no tag like the add=no sticker on your physical mailbox.

Yves

Le 6 octobre 2017 05:37:37 GMT+02:00, JB <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Le 05/10/2017 à 22:50, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field -
"name:en:bot=no" - as long as those flags are not added by a bot :)
Ho…
We are now manually contributing one more tag to say it was contributed
manually…
So many people seem to think one geodatabase can be created only through
bots, imports, etc… why not go create it?
JB.



talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Warin
In reply to this post by jbosm
On 06-Oct-17 02:37 PM, JB wrote:

>
> Le 05/10/2017 à 22:50, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
>> I like the "bot=no" flag, or a more specific one for a given field - 
>> "name:en:bot=no" - as long as those flags are not added by a bot :)
> Ho…
> We are now manually contributing one more tag to say it was
> contributed manually…
> So many people seem to think one geodatabase can be created only
> through bots, imports, etc… why not go create it?
> JB.
>
First import? OSM :-D



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Yves


sent from a phone

> On 6. Oct 2017, at 06:02, Yves <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> @JB, I understood the bot=no tag like the add=no sticker on your physical mailbox


yes, just like every active mapper having  tens of thousands of mailboxes to add stickers to. What about an opt in? Add a bot=yes if you want your edits modified by bots...

cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

Jo-2
to clearly define what the bot can and cannot do?

Personally I think we need all the help we can get from automation, but it needs to remain 'overseen' by an actual mapper.

That's why I like the todo list plugin in JOSM a lot. And why I try to help with developing tools to find errors and do trivial fixes. Especially relations are relatively brittle in the OSM world.

So I understand the resistance against Yuri's automated handling of wikidata tags. What he should do, is make his suggestions for improvement available through our validation tools and then have mappers process them.

What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with wikidata. If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped, then create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing entries.

You could argue that's not strictly mapping anymore, but it does enhance open data as a whole. So I think it is worthwhile to do it.

If it were possible to link from Wikidata to OSM, I'm sure it would be done that way, but since there are no stable ids on our side, tags are the only way to do it.

In JOSM it's possible to see which labels are behind the numbers. It should be trivial to do so in Id as well. And why not on the standard rendering too?

Polyglot

2017-10-06 9:45 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:


sent from a phone

> On 6. Oct 2017, at 06:02, Yves <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> @JB, I understood the bot=no tag like the add=no sticker on your physical mailbox


yes, just like every active mapper having  tens of thousands of mailboxes to add stickers to. What about an opt in? Add a bot=yes if you want your edits modified by bots...

cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on bot edits

dieterdreist
2017-10-06 10:10 GMT+02:00 Jo <[hidden email]>:
What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with wikidata. If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped, then create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing entries.


it's actually not that easy. I tried to do this and gave up (in the infamous ALDI case). Andy Mabbett had created 1 new "sub-entity" for each of the 2 enterprises which together are described in the wikipedia article, but you cannot add the wikipedia article to the new wikidata object without removing it from the other wikidata object (for both). As the wikidata object that covers both enterprises is the best fit for the WP article, I decided to keep the Wikipedia article linked to this, but then it didn't make sense to use the more precise wikidata object as reference in OSM as it hadn't any wikipedia article linked to it.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
12