Talk:Organised Editing/Activities
Replace with categories
As with the import catalog, this table appears to be comprehensive but isn't. There are two other language versions of this page that list their own distinct sets of activity proposals, apparently based on the language that the proposal's author speaks. It's good that we don't force these proposals to be written in English. But what if someone who speaks a different language needs to look up that proposal after the fact? I think it would be more useful to organize the proposals by the status, year, or affected area.
That would be a lot easier to do with a category system than a manually maintained table. As it is, many of the people who are responsible for writing these proposals have little experience with wiki editing, so we can't expect the table to remain well-organized by itself. But if we create an automatically categorizing template, as I've proposed for the imports process, then there should be much less maintenance overhead. As a first step, I've modified the preload for new proposals to sort into Category:Organised editing activities.
– Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a very good idea, to organize and maintain the activities. I think they should be organized by regions (continents probably).This also allows the local communities to check new activities, divide global activities in regions (with local responsibles), and promote the inclusion of new activities. At least, in LatAm, very few people fill this, however, each country has several active activities. AngocA (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Added new Community objections? on Humanitarian Mapping by HOT (lack of public instructions on how HOT Global Validators should use to detect and recover deleted content from local mappers
I will add note on "Community objections?" on Humanitarian Mapping by HOT. I know that the current description "(...)and many reviews ignored very clear issues." is somewhat related , however I'm providing a very specific issue with deleted content (which actually is not obvious on the typical JOSM-like validation warnings, and even not feasible to detect on OSMCha).
(As context: extra reason for adding it first on this talk page is because previously my content was deleted from that page twice (and no, it was not faithfully copied, for example the links to changeset discussions where deleted and further edits where also questioned) and even when DWG member explicitly asked to list again the organized editing on the forums, it not even link to the problematic organized editing was listed back on the page). Organised_Editing/Activities. I hope if interest in editing this addition is made by someone who has a conflict of interest, the person discusses it here first.)
On the added text, I will link two changeset discussions (both from HOT Global Validators, which I personally would say are experienced and good ones). However note that already the typical documentation related to these organized editing, which is sometimes cited, the https://learnosm.org/, don't cover potential collateral damage (but trutfully warns project decisions "can result in significant data quality issues" under certain circumstances without actually explaining what to do when these decisions are made). I'm afraid additional rounds of validation by different people without explain how they would do is insufficient, also because finding this kind of collateral damage already is far more time consuming than a quick tutorial on how to use specific tools to undeleting the data.
--EmericusPetro (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)