Rapid does not have “mass-import tooling”. It allows users to verify suggestions one-by-one.
Frankly, I’m getting tired of explaining this to you and responding to misinformation on this forum by the same 3 people. I’ve asked for moderation on this forum and been told it’s not an issue.
I worry that our community has passed a tipping point where it’s ok to just lie now and everyone just accepts it.
it does not stop people from using it for large-scale imports, though I guess not mentioning that you need at least to select + press a can mislead people
I will edit mentioned post.
(I guess that it is also required in poweruser mode?)
EDIT: edited previous message, marking it as edited
I guess it depends on how you exactly define it, but it definitely allows large volume imports.
Either way I hope that edited version is acceptable and that anyone that could be mislead by it will see also that post.
You added 10 buildings and a road.
It’s not a “mass import” or a “large volume import”, or even an “import”.
You see the suggested features on the screen and choose to add them or not. You can clean them up if you want to. The entire process is manual by design.
Mateusz. I’m tired of hearing you spread lies about what we built. I’ve had to correct you on Slack and Discord too. It’s weird too because I know you know what automated edits are because you do them and post about them regularly in various channels.
Please try harder to follow the community guidelines and communicate honestly. I’m disappointed that the mods here continue to allow you spread misinformation.
I just tried this myself in Rapid, and I agree that “allows mass imports” is completely out of line. You literally have to touch them one by one, and there’s no way I could find to pull in buildings in bulk. I think someone said once recently, “if you’re reviewing each object, it’s not an import”, and that’s certainly what’s happening here. It may have worked differently in the past, but the current setup seems compatible with OSM expectations surrounding external data sets.
note that example has also example of NOT reviewing buildings, one of buildings has broken geometry
adding such geometry without fixing it is definitely an import (and bad one at that), and was done by some mappers (to be clear, far more bad imports were done with JOSM)
That is why I edited it out.
But claiming that copying entries from external source, mostly without modification is not an import seems dubious to me.
look again at it, this is not a real building shape
adding that without fixing it is definitely an import, and poor one at that
if that snippet would depict someone fixing geometries, then it could be argued that it is not an import
(BTW, road being accepted a bit later is also not great)
I already edited out “mass import” claim, but if you add a single object or property copied from external source without reviewing it: then it is definitely an import.
Please, look again at that clip. And next time please check what people posted before claiming that they lie. It definitely depicts an import*, and one that is more harmful than useful.
*technically mapper could first blindly accept shapes and then fix them, but it is not a thing that is likely to happen
*OK, technically maybe this specific animation does not depict import as it was not saved - but if that would be save it would be a bad import
Everyone please continue this discussion in good faith, extending grace to one another, even if this topic has been discussed previously on this forum or elsewhere.
For clarity, I meant this type of editing (do not worry, this edit is not saved):
(quick selection + hotkey to accept without actual review, I would call it “mass importing” but I will try to use a different more clear term in future)
NOTE: order of posts was changed on moving to a separate thread. Initially it was far earlier, directly after Rapid’s Data Integration Capabilities - #2 by Mateusz_Konieczny .
It was a small demonstration of an editing pattern that some people do on a large scale. Mateusz is correct that this sort of editing is really not much different from an import.
This is also correct. It’s just that some people choose to accept suggestions extremely quickly without thinking. People can do the same in JOSM too, though there is a bit of a higher learning curve.
I haven’t read anything I’d consider against the community guidelines or misinformation. Sub-optimal word choice perhaps, leading to slight mischaracterisation that has now been refuted.
In reply to a split conversation:
This is really getting off-topic. Microsoft building detections aren’t what people normally mean when they say, “Don’t copy from other maps.” We could be talking about one of the high-quality, LiDAR-derived building datasets also listed in Rapid and it would still be off-topic.
The primary reason for the rule is the risk of violating intellectual property rights. For example, you could violate the rule by:
The original thread and the wiki page shouldn’t turn into a general discussion of OSM threat vectors, because novice mappers will have even less clarity about what they should and shouldn’t do.
The last time this came up in the UK the issue was with “power user mode”, but an analysis at the time didn’t find that to be a major factor in the UK edits being discussed in that thread.
Three and a half months later, looking through UK changesets between May and now, there are still only 3 users who have had that flag turned on (and of course we don’t know what they did with it). Worldwide 37 users have had that flag turned on in the last month.