OpenStreetMap
New users shouldn't be allowed to delete a lot of data
ߊ߬ ߟߊߦߟߍ߬ߣߍ߲߬ ߦߋ߫ naoliv ߓߟߏ߫ 28 April 2014 ߦߋ߫ English ߟߋ߬ ߘߐ߫Really. It’s tiring to keep fixing deleted administrative boundaries, for example.
Or revert changesets where people play SimCity on the map (and also delete a lot of things).
Discussion
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ erickdeoliveiraleal ߟߊ߫ 28 April 2014 at 21:02 ߘߐ߫
+1
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ RobJN ߟߊ߫ 28 April 2014 at 22:01 ߘߐ߫
Do any of the editors warn you if you try to upload a change that includes a lot of deletions?
Also, we have experienced mappers coming to the local mailing list to ask for a revert. It’s actually very easy to do with JOSM’s revert plugin.
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ Rps333 ߟߊ߫ 29 April 2014 at 00:12 ߘߐ߫
+1
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ tmcw ߟߊ߫ 29 April 2014 at 02:05 ߘߐ߫
The answer is yes. Here’s iD’s implementation.
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ marczoutendijk ߟߊ߫ 29 April 2014 at 08:48 ߘߐ߫
It’s my opinion that the layer with administrative borders shouldn’t be available at all to the regular mapper. When I started mapping I was really puzzled (and confused) by the idea that real things (like roads, mountains and rivers) could be connected to a ‘virtual’ world of borders. And at what point becomes a “new” user an “accepted” user?
So yes, I support your complaining, but I also plea for a non-editable layer of administrative (and other) boundaries.
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ AndiG88 ߟߊ߫ 29 April 2014 at 13:50 ߘߐ߫
I think it would be enough if there just was some checkbox “show/download administrative boundaries” either on your profile or in the editors, that is disabled by default and is semi hidden in some sub menu.
That way a user spending more time editing OSM would find it at some point or could simply look it up in the wiki.
I honestly would want that option for myself, because 99.99% of the time I don’t need them and just risk accidentally moving or connecting ways to them.
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ jgpacker ߟߊ߫ 29 April 2014 at 14:46 ߘߐ߫
I think that’s a great suggestion. But what can be done when the administrative boundary is made with rivers and/or streets?
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ Pieren ߟߊ߫ 2 May 2014 at 11:03 ߘߐ߫
-1 If it’s “non-editable”, then it has nothing to do in OSM. Create a mashup with external data if you are not happy. Admin borders are changing anyway, it shall be possible to modify them and I dont want to see a new elitist caste of super-contributors in OSM. And what after borders ? motorways ? place names ? population ? coastline ? bus routes ? etc… What we need more is QA tools monitoring the quality of the data in general. Special tools are already checking admin borders and coastline.
+1 to create a status of ‘new contributor’ with reduced write access to the db. But this should be limited in time (e.g. max. 3 days of contributions).
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ kc0nlh ߟߊ߫ 8 May 2014 at 15:34 ߘߐ߫
I agree that there should be some form of check and balance on mass edits by new users. I was very grateful that ID did have the warning about deleting stuff when I was cleaning up parking lots and consolidating lots I realized I had accidentally deleted a park in the process so I canceled the save and started all over.