Currently ongoing automated edit for service:vehicle*

I noticed that ti-lo is currently performing global automated edit to align and remove service:vehicle* tags. I believe this might have harmful effects and could be potentially dangerous.

Example changeset: achavi - Augmented OSM Change Viewer  [attic]

1 Like

Autsch. Is there a discussion/documentation page for his mass edits?

EDIT: I have send him a PM.

1 Like

Before creating this topic I asked about discussion and documentation and the response I got was how ID editor created a mess:

It could be that the chagnes are not automatic but manual. But still, there are over 300 changesets in the past couple of days that might need special attention.

This particular user has a habit of this sort of thing. At the very least, data consumers should have a heads-up about changes that they may not be expecting.

If the community feels that it is appropriate, the DWG would be able to block the user for a period of time and revert this series of edits - please email if that is the case.


From OSM’s Data Working Group


So, this seemingly redundant tagging should stay or what?

1 Like

So do I understand correctly: ID introduced a new tag (service:vehicle) which ti-lo don’t likes and so he removes it ?

EDIT: Ok, he is introducing NEW tags instead…

Mechanical Edit’s do not necessary be automatic.

See also [Tagging] Status of clothes=motorcycle

No, they both add new tags and performs large scale removal of widely used tags, without discussion - because they dislike that 5 years ago people then developing iD made tagging change without discussion. Which does not seem to be consistent.


A revert has been done in . Where objects have been edited since ti-lo’s edit the new data won’t be reverted. I’ve gone through changes since the start of the year and included the automated edits mentioned in this thread, and some others in a similar vein. I’ve excluded (i.e. not reverted) some that “seem obviously correct” and some where ti-lo seems to be adding useful domain knowledge.

For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that the data before was “always correct” or that ti-lo’s edits were “always wrong”; I’m just reverting to the “status quo ante” so that the community can discuss the best way to tag these objects. If anyone believes that something near them is incorrectly tagged after my revert or ti-lo’s edits, please do retag it correctly.

The user is blocked for a month, which is a longer block than is usual for something like this, but this is far from the first time they have done this.

Indeed. Looking at the previously mentioned example way shows what was changed. Something was originally mapped in a certain way (if necessary we can discuss the tags used, but the important thing was that it was mapped). Two other mappers changed one tag each. I can see the logic behind the change from " service:vehicle:boat_repair" (a boat isn’t part of a car) and " service:vehicle:Transmission_Repair" (uppercase in tags), so it makes sense to keep those edits.

With regard to " service:vehicle:air_conditioning" vs " car:aircondition" etc. I’m sure that there’s a tagging discussion to be had, and after that it might be appropriate to suggest a mechanical edit as per the normal procedure, but let’s have the discussion first.

I have suggested that ti-lo discuss any suggested changes in this forum, but they won’t be able to authenticate themselves here until their block has expired.

I also tried to reason with ti-lo before creating this thread. He was actually responsive and in the last message I got he replied:

Thanks a lot for the details. I didn’t get the meaning of the “ID editor tagging schema”. All I wanted to achieve is to get the discussion finally running, an this seems to be the case. IMHO the scheme I chose is the most “KISS principle” one (leaned on the usual tagging), but I’m fine with every other which makes sense.

To me it looks like the tagging alignment issue for car repair services is real but it is unfortunate the way he addressed this problem.

1 Like

I have suggested that ti-lo discuss any suggested changes in this forum, but they won’t be able to authenticate themselves here until their block has expired.

it is (in some cases at least) unfortunate if blocks for map edits are also blocks on this platform (and possibly other services like uploading gps traces) and vice versa.

Maybe they could still have their discussion on the wiki as it is a separate account, or do blocks extend to the wiki as well?


That sounds like something that you’d want to address to the forums governance team. I’ve no idea whether that’s a policy or a side-effect of the way that authentication is done here.

Technically, wiki blocks are entirely separate from API blocks. Administratively, wiki blocks are by a different team (the wiki admins).

Maybe (although personally I’ve never found the wiki a great place for threaded discussion). Aside from the wiki, the traditional forum for tagging discussion has tended to be the tagging mailing list, which is a different administration again.

1 Like