"OSM is super easy, just create an accound and start editing the map!"
I’m not a huge fan of promoting OSM this way.
I love improving the map to add more and more details about my city. It’s much less fun to have to use undelete tools or dig through history to restore mistakes by careless newbies.
I agree that protecting some objects against changes or peer certification will deter new people from joining. But I’d like to hear thoughts about how to protect the map against such edits.
@bxl_forever my street, which is a dead end, keeps getting merged by random people to another street which looks like it is close-by on the map, but is separated by a body of water with no bridge. I wish I could "lock in" my version since I actually live there.
@thufie Sometimes, I write a short explanation in the "note" field such as "This point does not connect road X. This is not a mistake."
But I imagine that not everyone checks existing tags before changing stuff, especially those who use iD.
Good luck to you.
@bxl_forever Hello, Is this in Brussels? If yes, Where is it?
I fixed the area today, it might take a few days before you can see the changes in all layers.
I left a short note to the mapper who had messed this up. I’m sure that person wants to be helpful and might bring good stuff to the map. I wish I could maybe meet that person one day and take the time together to learn how to do things properly.
I suggest using notes first, then adding details to existing geometry, then adding new point features and then, maybe, start editing and adding complex geometry.
Once new users have made their way to the last stage, they are either committed and have picked up some good practice or have already left the project.
@bxl_forever I think editing software could help. Software which is limited and only allows you to do certain things, and prevents new uses from doing things. StreetComplete is an example of that.
@rory Yes, this looks like a good idea.
@bxl_forever I agree with forcing a peer review for specific features (eg. roads, bus lines, ferries etc... as any mistake in these departments will make navigation much harder), but such peer review must have a clear SLA (eg. 48h) that *must* be respected, lest we fall back on potentially useful updates, not to mention the chilling effect it would have on contributors
@Antanicus I like the idea. Thanks.
Every now and then I look at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious but that's only for those who explicitely asked for review.
Maybe we should set up a system where experienced users would volonteer to "patrol" a given bbox they are familiar with, and they would be notified of potentially suspicious changesets (too many deletions, or user with less than 50 edits…).
Registrations are closed for the moment.