Automated edits code of conduct

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Automated edits code of conduct

Eric Gillet
Hello,

OSM contributions must follow the Contributor Terms; these therms are being shown to new users and they must explicitely accept them before they can start contributing.

However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG : the Automated edits code of conduct (AECoC).

In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
  • Are not shown to new contributors
  • Are not accepted by new or existing contributors
  • Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"
  • Seems to have been written by an eminent, but small set of contributors (history)
Like the Contributor terms, the AECoC is enforced by the DWG and can cause reverts by its members, on terms that have not been accepted by contributors.

As such, I think that the AECoc in its current form should not serve as a basis for reversal of changesets by the DWG.

If it were to, I think it should be put to an higher set of standards than the changeset it aims to direct. For example it could be audited with an RFC, then a vote, and finally being explicitely accepted by contributors.

What are your thoughts ?

--
Éric


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

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Hakuch
On 10.07.2016 23:26, Éric Gillet wrote:
> If it were to, I think it should be put to an higher set of standards than
> the changeset it aims to direct. For example it could be audited with an
> RFC, then a vote, and finally being explicitely accepted by contributors.
>
> What are your thoughts ?

+1, I always like to have more "stable" decisions in our processes

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

0x3CBE432B.asc (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Christoph Hormann
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet
On Sunday 10 July 2016, Éric Gillet wrote:
>
> In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
>
>    - Are not shown to new contributors
>    - Are not accepted by new or existing contributors

Maybe that is because they don't apply to the vast majority of
contributors.  You don't need to accept the automated edit rules to
contribute to OSM as long as you don't do automated edits.

>    - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"
>    - Seems to have been written by an eminent, but small set of
>    contributors (history

Doesn't this also apply for the Contributor Terms?

Remember OSM is largely a do-ocracy - those who put work into developing
the rules have a significant influence on their content.  This does not
make them illegitimate.  Both participating in creating and improving
the rules as well as working on the DWG making sure mappers comply with
the rules are open to everyone.

--
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Michael Reichert
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet
Hi Éric,

Am 10.07.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Éric Gillet:

> OSM contributions must follow the Contributor Terms
> <http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms>; these
> therms are being shown to new users and they must explicitely accept them
> before they can start contributing.
>
> However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG :
> the Automated edits code of conduct
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct>
>  (AECoC).
>
> In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
>
>    - Are not shown to new contributors
It is shown to new contributors, not directly but they get informed. If
you create an account, you will see a welcome page after clicking on the
confirmation link which you get via email. This page explains basic
things like the data model (node, way, relation) and says that there are
special rules for imports and mechanical edits.

>    - Are not accepted by new or existing contributors
>    - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"

There are dozens of other rules which have neither been voted nor being
accepted by every contributor. Just have a look at Good_Practice at OSM
wiki. None of those items has been voted. They are basic rules.

The Contributor Terms are a replacement for the former CC-BY-SA license
all contributors granted (to everyone directly). Nowadays OSMF
"collects" all these rights using a contract called Contributor Terms.

>    - Seems to have been written by an eminent, but small set of
>    contributors (history
>    <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct&offset=&limit=500&action=history>
>    )

Did you have a look at the mailing list archives of the time when this
policy was written (+-6 months)?

Both Import Guidelines and Automated Edits Code of Conduct are
guidelines which will reduce the likelihood that your import/mechanical
edit gets reverted.

We don't have a Don't Delete Everything Policy. Nevertheless, we revert
vandalism (if we discover it).

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)


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

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Victor Grousset-2
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet
On 10/07/2016 23:26, Éric Gillet wrote:

> [...]
> However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG
> : the Automated edits code of conduct
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct> (AECoC).
>
> In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
>
>   * [...]
>   * Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"
>   * [...]

About the question of legitimacy of the AECoC, I have one element to add.

I very recently had a discussion with our co-contributor and DWG member
woodpeck about a revert of 80 changesets from another contributor which
didn't discussed that massive amount of automated work. (which I agree
is an issue and that's not the point of this email)

One of the main topic of the discussion was that among the 80 reverted
changesets there were a handful of non automated ones that therefore
shouldn't have been reverted.
These collateral damage were due to the lack of time to review each
changeset and the fact that many of them didn't have a clear changeset
comment. (I'm not discussing here how hard it was to tell them apart,
that's why I'm not posting the links to the changetsets in question)

I was arguing that the rules for dealing with vandalism and the AECoC
don't state that these trade-offs was acceptable (a quick a inaccurate
summary but that's not the point of this email). And this resulted in
woodpeck editing the AECoC to add a part that would legitimize these
kinds of trade-offs and the resulting collateral damage:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct&type=revision&diff=1319651&oldid=1292124

Which raises huge concerns about the legitimacy of the AECoC and maybe
other parts of the wiki about community rules.

The discussion with woodpeck is still ongoing and he didn't had the time
yet to answer my concerns about that wiki edit. I hope I didn't too much
altered and biased our discussion when summarizing it.
@woodpeck: feel free to correct me. And sorry for posting this before
the end of our discussion but this debate is very close to what I was
planning to post here when we would have finished.


--
tuxayo

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

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet
Hi,

On 07/10/2016 11:26 PM, Éric Gillet wrote:
> However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG
> : the Automated edits code of conduct

This whole discussion seems to have its origin in this changeset:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27888534

Where - for the umpteenth time - someone thought it was a good idea to
replace landuse=forest with landuse=wood world-wide, without looking at
individual cases and motivations.

The user was contacted http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27656417
but insisted that his mass edit was generally ok (while acknowledging a
small mistake regarding deciduous/broad-leved). His edits were then
reverted.

Because his edits stretched over several days and changesets, and
because the changeset comments contained no hint at whether or not the
particular changeset did contain this kind of un-discussed mechanical
edits, the DWG member executing the revert - that was me - only did a
cursory inspection and in doing so, reverted a few changesets that were
*not* mechanical edits.

(This was not the first time the user had been called out for
ill-conceived mass edits; he first came to DWG's attention because a US
mapper complained about http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27644435
which makes world-wide changes to some natural=water objects.)

The user was unhappy, but my reaction was the verbal equivalent of a
shrug; if you make a mechanical edit, refuse to concede that you made a
mistake, and your edit isn't even clearly recognizable then you have to
accept a little collateral damage. DWG has only a finite amount of time
to deal with problems and while it would be great if we could sort
through a problematic changeset or series of changeset and separate the
good from the bad, sometimes the presence of enough bad stuff can lead
to a wholesale revert.

This whole changeset was about a year ago but recently I was contacted
by one user, tuxayo, asking me to concede that mistakes were made
handling that particular revert, and would I please answer the open
questions raised by user Test360. I explained everything I wrote above,
but apparently this was not sufficient, as today I received another
message, this time by user gileri, asking me to comment, and now this
thread.

The automated edits code of conduct is there for a reason; had user
Test360 complied with it, then his edit would likely not have been
faulty (e.g. the deciduous/broad-leved mistake), and would not have had
to be reverted. The same is true for user gileri's edit in
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27867757 which, had he discussed
it before, would likely either not have been executed, or at least not
have been executed in a way that drew complaints.

The automated edits code of conduct has been created as a result of DWG
work, where we often have to deal with the detrimental effects of badly
planned, badly executed lone-wolf edits.

This is just one of many rules that have been developed in the
community; some are written, some are unwritten. Take, for example.
changeset comments: While there are recommendations to use good
changeset comments, this is not usually enforced. But if there are
complaints about someone's edits, DWG may occasionally tell them that
they *must* use good changeset comments or we'll block them. Or even
basic rules about respect and politeness; they're not enshrined anywhere
or shown to you before you sign up. We also have import guidelines
(which, by they way, were the reason for another anti-DWG storm in a
French teacup a couple years ago when DWG requested that Cadastre
importers use a separate import account).

Is it *really* a problem that some rules are not shown to people when
they sign up? In my opinion, mass edits are an advanced enough topic
that, if you research it enough, you *will* be pointed to these rules,
or find them in countless answers on help.openstreetmap.org.

I'm all for discussing the rules we have, but I'd like to know what
exactly the problem is. "There has been no vote on these rules" is not
the honest reason for this thread and I refuse to be drawn into an
insincere, endless procedural discussion just because someone has an axe
to grind with DWG.

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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Matthijs Melissen
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet
On 10 July 2016 at 23:26, Éric Gillet <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What are your thoughts ?

I fully agree with all your points. I think a wider community
discussion on the current guidelines is necessary.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Matthijs Melissen
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
On 11 July 2016 at 01:08, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The automated edits code of conduct is there for a reason; had user
> Test360 complied with it, then his edit would likely not have been
> faulty

My main issue with the AEcoc is that it is nearly impossible to comply
with, especially the part that says that community consensus is
necessary (or rather, "said", because this requirement seems to have
been silently removed).

Could you point me to a single worldwide mechanical edit that
satisfies the AEcoc guidelines?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Eric Gillet
In reply to this post by Michael Reichert
Hi Michael,

2016-07-11 0:08 GMT+02:00 Michael Reichert <[hidden email]>:
Hi Éric,

Am 10.07.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Éric Gillet:

> In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
>    - Are not shown to new contributors

It is shown to new contributors, not directly but they get informed. If
you create an account, you will see a welcome page after clicking on the
confirmation link which you get via email. This page explains basic
things like the data model (node, way, relation) and says that there are
special rules for imports and mechanical edits.

You're right, I just noticed that they indeed are, but a lot less prominently as the Contributor Terms (and doesn't require acceptance)

>    - Are not accepted by new or existing contributors
>    - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"

There are dozens of other rules which have neither been voted nor being
accepted by every contributor. Just have a look at Good_Practice at OSM
wiki. None of those items has been voted. They are basic rules.

Of course, however those rules are not enforced by the DWG.
 

The Contributor Terms are a replacement for the former CC-BY-SA license
all contributors granted (to everyone directly). Nowadays OSMF
"collects" all these rights using a contract called Contributor Terms.

>    - Seems to have been written by an eminent, but small set of
>    contributors (history
>    <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct&offset=&limit=500&action=history>
>    )

Did you have a look at the mailing list archives of the time when this
policy was written (+-6 months)?

I believe that just like the tagging process, the discussion leading to the establishment of those rules should be open and not require digging through an 8 years-old mailing list.
 

Both Import Guidelines and Automated Edits Code of Conduct are
guidelines which will reduce the likelihood that your import/mechanical
edit gets reverted.

This is only the stated goal of the AE CoC. Following that wiki page means that the changeset can't be reversed on basis of this wiki page, no more.
I think  that this page should encourage mapping good data ©, not be as broad as possible in order to become a justification when someone want to revert a changeset.


We don't have a Don't Delete Everything Policy. Nevertheless, we revert
vandalism (if we discover it).

But what is vandalism ? 

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

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Matthijs Melissen
Hi,

On 07/11/2016 01:23 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> My main issue with the AEcoc is that it is nearly impossible to comply
> with, especially the part that says that community consensus is
> necessary (or rather, "said", because this requirement seems to have
> been silently removed).

Which part has been removed and by whom?

The December 2014 version says:

"If you plan to make an automated edit, outline it beforehand and
discuss it on a suitable mailing list ... We do not require or recommend
a formal vote, but if there is significant objection to your plan - and
even minorities may be significant! - then change it or drop it altogether."

and

"OpenStreetMap is very much built on consensus. A majority of voices on
a mailing list does not give you the right to do whatever you please to
the data created by the minority. ..."

The current version says:

"If you plan to make any automated edit, you should discuss and document
your plans beforehand. Documentation should be placed on the wiki and
the proposal should then be discussed them on a suitable Mailing lists: ..."

and

"OpenStreetMap is built on consensus, rather than a majority voting and
you should therefor be sensitive to proceeding with major changes even
where the great majority support the change."

There might be a potential misunderstanding here; some people seem to
believe that the policies outlined in the Wiki are some kind of "law"
and that if you comply with it, you are always "right". (Wikipedia tends
to run into a "lawyering" problem with this - they have policies, they
call somebody out for doing something stupid, and the person then says
"but I have followed all the policies, you cannot do anything, ha ha!".
This is great fun for those who do stupid things and have a lot of time
to conduct procedural discussions, and a great nuisance for everybody
else in the project.)

In reality, the automated edititing rules are general guidelines set up
to minimize problems but you can follow them and *still* cause problems
(a fact that is mentioned in the document: "If you have followed this
policy then this means your account will not be blocked right away when
someone complains, but you might still have to change or stop what
you're doing if people dislike your actions and / or their side-effects.")

You might say that the whole document is just a more wordy version of
"if your edit pisses people off, you'll get into trouble".

> Could you point me to a single worldwide mechanical edit that
> satisfies the AEcoc guidelines?

I can't but then we don't track them at DWG - we don't grant
permissions, we only act when we either hear complaints, or see faulty
(or otherwise problematic) edits ourselves. Haven't you done something
about musical instruments once? IIRC there was a bit of an issue with
you asking for a "vote" on the issue, thereby making it sound as if 51%
were enough to carry such an edit... but you did run it in the end,
didn't you?

Personally, I think that world-wide mechanical edits should be the
absolute exception since it becomes more and more difficult to engage
the world-wide community in a discussion; the danger of causing problems
in a far-off corner of OSM with an automated edit is just too big.
Having said that, if someone makes a world-wide edit that they discuss
on the talk or tagging lists before and that are ok with everyone (or
almost everyone) there, they have at least shown diligence and a will to
do it right. If they run their edit and then someone from Peru
complains, they might still need to revert or fix it, but at least
they're not the lone-wolf guy who didn't care what others think and DWG
will certainly treat someone who tried to do it right but failed
differently from someone who didn't even try!

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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

Eric Gillet
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann
2016-07-10 23:56 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>:
On Sunday 10 July 2016, Éric Gillet wrote:
>
> In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
>
>    - Are not shown to new contributors
>    - Are not accepted by new or existing contributors

Maybe that is because they don't apply to the vast majority of
contributors.  You don't need to accept the automated edit rules to
contribute to OSM as long as you don't do automated edits.

If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the change, it is covered under the AE CoC. I don't think of that as an advanced or uncommon task.
 

>    - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"
>    - Seems to have been written by an eminent, but small set of
>    contributors (history

Doesn't this also apply for the Contributor Terms?

Yes, it does. But it's mainly the combination of these points that is problematic.

Remember OSM is largely a do-ocracy - those who put work into developing
the rules have a significant influence on their content.

It shouldn't forbid to re-evaluate them.

This does not
make them illegitimate.

This doesn't make them legitimate either.


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

Re: Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 07/11/2016 02:02 AM, Éric Gillet wrote:
> If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the
> change, it is covered under the AE CoC.

No, the document clearly states in the "Scope" section:

"use of find-and-replace functionality using a standard editor such as
JOSM or finding using services such as Overpass API and changing without
reviewing cases individually;"

Sadly, we often have people who run search-and-replace operations and
*claim* that they have "reviewed cases individually", and then if you
look at their edit, they have changed a tag on a POI that sits in the
middle of a road or so - which means that they were either lying, or
they have only done a very, very cursory "manual review" of their change.

An automated, or mechanical, edit is when you do not look at the
individual object you're editing.

There is no similar policy covering manual edits. But of course if
someone *manually* changes 500 landuse=wood to landuse=forest across the
planet, it is still possible that they make a mistake and it needs
fixing in some way, or if they do it repeatedly and cause problems with
it, they might still be blocked. This is not a court system; DWG doesn't
need a law on the Wiki to take action against someone who causes
trouble. However, causing trouble through manual edits is so much less
frequent than causing trouble with mechanical edits that we have written
up a policy on the latter.

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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Eugene Alvin Villar
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Éric Gillet <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

OSM contributions must follow the Contributor Terms; these therms are being shown to new users and they must explicitely accept them before they can start contributing.

However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG : the Automated edits code of conduct (AECoC).

In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
  • Are not shown to new contributors
  • Are not accepted by new or existing contributors
  • Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"
  • Seems to have been written by an eminent, but small set of contributors (history)
Like the Contributor terms, the AECoC is enforced by the DWG and can cause reverts by its members, on terms that have not been accepted by contributors.

As such, I think that the AECoc in its current form should not serve as a basis for reversal of changesets by the DWG.

If it were to, I think it should be put to an higher set of standards than the changeset it aims to direct. For example it could be audited with an RFC, then a vote, and finally being explicitely accepted by contributors.

What are your thoughts ?

The comparison between the Contributor Terms and AECoC is unfair.

The Contributor Terms is a legal requirement. Users need to *explicitly* agree to the Contributor Terms in order to avoid legal issues and avoid breaking the law (such as adding data from copyrighted sources without the necessary license and permission).

On the other hand, the AECoC is a community guideline. If you break it, there are no legal issues. So there is no legal requirement that guidelines have to be accepted by every user.

But should the AECoC be *explicitly* accepted/voted on by users outside of legal requirements? It may be a nice to have that, but the AECoC has been existing since 2008, and was borne out of frustrations by a lot of users then about people making quick, wholesale changes (i.e., automated) without discussing them first. The fact that this guideline has been existing that long and with no major opposition to them existing in the first place (well some may quibble on a particular provision or two) effectively makes them a guideline by consensus. I don't agree that new users have to continually "ratify" this guideline.

~Eugene
 

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

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet
Éric Gillet wrote:
> In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
> - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"

The Code of Conduct is a document enforced and revised by DWG, with the intention of codifying long-standing principles in OSM (principally, "respect the work of others").

DWG is a committee of the elected OSMF. If you don't like it, you can vote for directors on OSMF who share your viewpoint, who can then vote to instruct DWG accordingly.

This is called representative democracy. The alternative is direct democracy, where fundamental policies are put to a vote (or "referendum") among an ill-informed, over-emotive, easily stirred-up population. This is a really, really bad idea. Trust me on that one. :(

Richard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Christoph Hormann
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet

Another thought: maybe it would be helpful to think of the DWG work as
some kind of fire brigade rather than police.  They do not work to
enforce formal laws but are around in case something disruptive to
normal mapping activities happens too severe for the individual mappers
to deal with.  If during this work some unintended damage happens that
is generally accepted.

In this light it might also be better to consider the Automated Edit
rules as documentation of the de facto consensus on the line between
normal uncritical edits and problematic ones that mappers frequently
find disruptive to their work and that have therefore - based on past
experience - been found to be required to follow a special procedure.

And Frederiks recent edit of the page with those rules in my eyes does
not change the rules, it just documents a fact that is probably obvious
to anyone who has ever reverted a changeset before.  It does not move
the actual line between normal edits and automated edits in any way.

If you think this line should be drawn differently i think this should
be openly discussed (based on a specific suggestion of course - not
just general dissatisfaction) but this would need to take into account
the practical experience of the DWG of course.

There is another line by the way between normal edits and vandalism
which is essentially defined through the Verifiability principle.  And
just like with automated edits - if you find a user doing lots of bogus
edits with a few correct ones mixed in between you can - no matter if
you are a normal mapper or DWG - revert those changes in total (after
trying to talk to the user of course).  There have been in the past a
few cases where the ratio between factual and bogus edits approaches
unity and where therefore there has been discussion how to deal with
that.  But as far as i can see none of the changes mentioned in this
thread can be considered borderline cases in that regard.

--
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Christoph Hormann
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
On Monday 11 July 2016, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

>
> DWG is a committee of the elected OSMF. If you don't like it, you can
> vote for directors on OSMF who share your viewpoint, who can then
> vote to instruct DWG accordingly.
>
> This is called representative democracy. The alternative is direct
> democracy, where fundamental policies are put to a vote (or
> "referendum") among an ill-informed, over-emotive, easily stirred-up
> population. This is a really, really bad idea. Trust me on that one.
> :(

I'd be somewhat careful here, the OSMF is not really democratic in a
strict sense (it lacks the typical division into executive and
legislative bodies for example) and due to the extremely small size of
the OSMF membership (a few hundred) compared to the size of the active
OSM community as a whole (25k every month) it is also not really
representative.  

This of course does not mean a direct vote of some sort on things (see
the tag voting process) would be any more representative.

--
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Eric Gillet

2016-07-11 2:02 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet <[hidden email]>:
If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the change, it is covered under the AE CoC. I don't think of that as an advanced or uncommon task.


when you do any "search and replace" based edits I believe these are correctly considered automated edits, because you can only in rare occassions do a real "manual review": you would have to visit (or at least have visited) all those places and see what is there on the ground, otherwise you can't be sure what the tags are applied to, and if a change makes sense.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

Eric Gillet
2016-07-11 11:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:

2016-07-11 2:02 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet <[hidden email]>:
If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the change, it is covered under the AE CoC. I don't think of that as an advanced or uncommon task.


when you do any "search and replace" based edits I believe these are correctly considered automated edits, because you can only in rare occassions do a real "manual review": you would have to visit (or at least have visited) all those places and see what is there on the ground, otherwise you can't be sure what the tags are applied to, and if a change makes sense.

I agree that survey are that on-premise survey is the best review method. But then you are adressing armchair mapping as a whole and not specifically search-and-replace edits.

There are instances where a survey is not necessary, and the information needed to perform the modification is available on imagery, website or open data, so the need to be on the premises is limited. But again this does apply to all armchair mapping.

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

Re: Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

Eric Gillet
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
2016-07-11 2:16 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]>:
On 07/11/2016 02:02 AM, Éric Gillet wrote:
> If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the
> change, it is covered under the AE CoC.

No, the document clearly states in the "Scope" section:

"use of find-and-replace functionality using a standard editor such as
JOSM or finding using services such as Overpass API and changing without
reviewing cases individually;"

Sadly, we often have people who run search-and-replace operations and
*claim* that they have "reviewed cases individually", and then if you
look at their edit, they have changed a tag on a POI that sits in the
middle of a road or so - which means that they were either lying, or
they have only done a very, very cursory "manual review" of their change.

An automated, or mechanical, edit is when you do not look at the
individual object you're editing.

When you add or correct some information on features are you responsible for the data outside the original reach of the changeset ? If so, it's a really important point for all contributions. I agree that ideally you would review all the data, but sometimes it is not necessary or even possible when you are not local.

I believe that changesets should try to be atomical, so when the point of the changeset is to correct phone numbers for examples, you shouldn't touch other tags.
In the case that the main subject of the changeset cause controversy, and must be reversed, you wouldn't want to remove other unrelated changes (e.g. node positions when editing phone numbers)

There is no similar policy covering manual edits. But of course if
someone *manually* changes 500 landuse=wood to landuse=forest across the
planet, it is still possible that they make a mistake and it needs
fixing in some way, or if they do it repeatedly and cause problems with
it, they might still be blocked. [...] However, causing trouble through manual edits is so much less
frequent than causing trouble with mechanical edits that we have written
up a policy on the latter.

Limiting the automation doesn't necessarily reduce the raw number of errors. What it does is that in case of an mapper/software error, the error may be applied to less content than a large edit.
But contributors can put a lot more focus and time in the "automated" edit than on each one-by-one manual updates, so I don't think the net gain of "automated" edits is negative.

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

Re: Automated edits code of conduct

Greg Troxel
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann

[replying to the thread in general]

I tend to be nervous about groups that are structurally like the DWG.
However, when I look at what they've done over the years I've been
involved, and the notion of the automated edits code, I have to say the
DWG has seemed 100% reasonable and if anything slightly too restrained.

So while it's always healthy to have a little dissent/discussion, I
don't think things are broken.

Discussing real cases isb likely more useful and constructive than
theory.  So perhaps we can table the meta-discussion and bring up
specific issues where people think they have overstepped.

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

signature.asc (186 bytes) Download Attachment
123
Loading...