I have a bot edit running in a number of other countries to automatically fix the simple cases. I would like to propose enabling that in Poland as well.
Please take a look, see what you think of the suggested fixes, make some edits and let me know your thoughts.
(I am happy to use the translate button for your replies)
If the bot had run today, it would have made 2226 edits, out of 2390 suggested fixes (and total of 3669 detected invalid objects). The excluded ones are things like elements with multiple phone numbers, duplicate phone numbers and any text in the phone tag value.
A full list of the edits that would have been made today is here:
I may be able to transform this to a different format, if that would be more helpful.
(I see that there a number of elements there which appear to show no difference, this is where some unusual character was used, like non-breaking space, which is being replaced with standard space)
I reviewed the Mazowieckie file, and it looks good to me.
But I have a concern regarding such a mass edit.
We are not fixing the actual source of the problem.
As you said, many of them have already been fixed, but incorrect values are still increasing.
Until the iD or JOSM validators detect these as incorrect values, they will continue appearing in the OSM db.
Instead, I would by trying to implement rules for things like broken spaces in the JOSM/iD validators (or at least check whether it is possible). I don’t mean enforcing specific formats, because that probably won’t happen.
I apologise for not making it clear that this would be an ongoing edit. The bot process runs every day, as part of the website creation. See the bot account for the edits that happen each day in other countries.
Whilst input validation would be good, with the free text nature of the OSM API, it’s not possible to be fully enforced. Every Door checks and formats phone numbers. There’s a plugin for JOSM that does the same.
They’re listed under Invalid Numbers. And while I believe listing them on defibrillator POIs is nonsense, from the perspective of phone number syntax they’re indeed valid.