Automated Edits code of conduct - clarification proposal

General talk
1

I propose to clarify Automated Edits code of conduct - OpenStreetMap Wiki a bit

I propose to add

*Reverting obvious vandalism, undiscussed unwanted imports can be
done by anyone without any special approval - “vandalism” situation
needs to be 100% clear, consulting with community is still recommended
but it is not necessary to involve [[DWG]]

to Automated Edits code of conduct - OpenStreetMap Wiki
in acceptable usage section, with edit comment:

Reverting obvious vandalism, undiscussed unwanted imports can be
done by anyone without any special approval - “vandalism” situation
needs to be 100% clear, consulting with community is still recommended
but it is not necessary to involve [[DWG]]" to “Acceptable usage” to
match actual situation, this was discussed at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/automated-edits-code-of-conduct-clarification-proposal/111525

This change is intended to cover following aspects

For example:

New account deleted many objects with edit description “lulz”? Revert on sight, maybe write to DWG and ask for block if it was not a throwaway account abandoned after making few vandal edits. Bot edit proposal is not needed to revert vandal. And if they start asking about it, then it is only sign of a malicious troll rather someone making test edit.

If there is large landuse edit deleting several hundred and adding thousands of elements - investigate is going on, do not revert blindly. Maybe it should be reverted, maybe it is a proper import that was documented - but link to documentation was somehow missed in this specific changeset.

Someone added thousands of almost certainly no longer existing railways that likely disappeared without trace - try to write in chargeset comment, PM them, maybe consult with relevant community. If that does not help: edit can be reverted. Bot approval is not needed, even if not every way was manually checked.

Vandal edit deletes many objects and creates some? Worth checking carefully, in such case revert may be tricky. But going through bot approval is still not needed.

Someone created 1000 notes, each with comment “aaaa”? Closing them with script does not require bot approval.

Someone added 10000 shops via not discussed import and anyone else is unhappy? They can revert such edit. But again, it is worth checking is it actually undiscussed import.

note: this is not some official post made on behalf of any working group or organisation, but personal proposal (based on some own experiences, with all listed aspects)

2

Vandalism is not a objective fact. It’s highly subjective.

You can always say “I reverted your changes, because I think it’s vandalism”.

5 Likes
3

I would still classify reverts in the “dangerous tools” category, and much of the point of the Automated Edits CC is to guide people towards acting with enough caution to avoid creating big messes.

While there is some truth to the phrasing “can be done by anyone without any special approval”, I fear this could incentivise a somewhat reckless spirit in certain cases.

2 Likes
4

I think we’re all fine with mappers reverting blatant vandalism and undiscussed imports, but it would be problematic if people started to revert edits for which mappers haven’t filed all the paperwork mentioned in the AECoC.

2 Likes
5

I’m not sure a proposal is needed for something that I thought was plainly obvious! I would recommend just making the edit and I’d be happy help with the copy editing.

6

If someone is just doing an automated edit (perhaps changing everything to their preferred tagging scheme) without even bothering to discuss with the rest of the OSM community, then that’s a problem. “Filing the paperwork” implies that an edit will be OK if they just do that, which isn’t true. Sometimes automated editors of all stripes may need to take a step back and think a bit less like a computer and a bit more like a human being.

1 Like
7

Sounds like Casper’s subtle humor was missed here…

2 Likes
8

Do you have an idea for a better phrasing? Or should it remain open secret that it is fine to do this?

(I am not really fan of codifying rules with exceptions not clearly written - but known and followed by all experienced people, it is just a trap and source of confusion for newbies)

Oh yes, and in cases where someone tried to conflate “edit I do not like” with “vandalism” then it is a bad thing.

9

Leave it exactly as it is.

With a DWG hat on, I can’t think of a major problem that has been caused by people NOT doing an immediate revert and asking other OSMers about it first - quite the reverse in fact.

Can you point to an actual problem that was caused by the current phrasing?

4 Likes