To Nakaner,
I see that you’re disapointed. At the same time, I think, based on your message, that you don’t have the whole story, so I will try to clarify the issue for you.
The issue regarding wambacher’s edits is (as I explained in the changesets and in block message) not the edits, but the changeset tags.
It is good practice in OSM to set a changeset comment (ie a “comment” tag) on every changeset explaining what was done such that another mapper can understand what’s happened and why. It’s also a good practice if using a secondary source, such as another map, or areal photography, to cite it in the “source” tag.
The purpose of these tags is to provide a history of the changes in OSM over time.
We don’t have strict requirements regarding this, but there are times that the DWG will mandate that a user (or set of users) use these tags when their edits are contentious.
National boundaries are objects which people are very sensitive about, so when they’re edited, people become concerned.
In order to reduce the concern people have, I requested that wambacher use these tags to explain why he was editing national boundaries. I used changeset discussions to do this becausue these discussions are public and participatory. A good thing to put in these tags would be a link to the wiki page where they explains their process, or some other indication of why a national boundary is being modified.
After I sent the first message, I waiited several days. There was no change, but there were more edits, so I sent another one, and waited again- again with no response but more edits of the same type.
At this point, I consulted with the DWG (specifically SomeoneElse and woodpeck) regarding the correct course of action, and we decided to follow standard procedure, which is what’s called a 0-hour block. A 0-hour block is a bit like an email that you must read. It creates a message for the user that they must log in and acknowledge before continuing to edit.
This tool is used to call attention to a message and also to allow us (DWG) the ability to say for certain that a user read a message. The message, in this case, was that these sensitive objects should have an indicator of why they’re being modified.
I did so, and recieved a message from wambacher by private message later, and we discussed the issue, and I hope have come to an undertanding of what is being requested. In addition, wambacher was given a clear avenue to ask questions or escalate the issue, which was to contact the DWG.
This procedure is the same procedure which the DWG quite often. If you feel that our procedure is unprofessional- then I encourage you to contact the DWG with specifics on how you would suggest that this type of situation be handled differently. I’d be very interested to hear that myself.
For others, I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
Now let’s get back to mapping,
