|
Top-level
 @thibaultmol @mihamarkic @djh Right, and to make vandalism (or innocent mistakes) "easily visible" it is a big help to have a frequently-updated and widely-used map. So it's hard to break that circle: to avoid users seeing vandalism, it might seem we need fewer people looking at the "live" (or demo) map. But that means fewer people giving feedback on vandalism which could mean that more of it makes it into "end user" maps... 4 comments
 @thibaultmol @alan @mihamarkic @djh I was thinking that this time the vandalism was quite big. If, and that's a big if, we assume mappers are human, why not try to impose a human paced editions? iD already tries to keep changesets small and how many changes a human can make per hour? hmm.... but then it's just a matter of creating new user to circumvent it. :( @alan @thibaultmol @djh I think @mihamarkic's original question was "how do those companies do their own QA". Maybe we could provide them with a platform that lets them do their QA on the original data, taking advantage of the shared effort, but we all know companies will be more than reluctant to use it.  @mdione @alan @djh @mihamarkic maybe this is just me, but the vandalism is mostly on roads. And realistically many providers are going to use Overture Maps which supposedly has some level of QA so wouldn't be affected by stuff like this |
Gregory's Server
@alan @mihamarkic @djh exactly
What I assume we need is just servers that don't shoke when they're getting spammed or when changes get reverted. And an improved rendering system for the tiles so that bad tiles can be more easily get wiped from the queue and force removed from caches