Talk:Automated edits/Archive 1

Wish list discussions

• A bot that marks all attractions that do not have a wheelchair tag yet with a FIXME=wheelchair tag.

I disagree with this request - missing tags can be identified easily by debug tools, editor software and human mappers, so there is no need to explicitly add FIXME. Btw, this section should be moved to a talk page. --Tordanik 14:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

---

• Finland is country with two official languages; Finnish and Swedish. This means that the streets in many municipalities have two names. So the following tag rules (as examples) and changes is needed (note our scandic letters äåöÄÅÖ): --Kslotte 11:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If name differ like ("name=Rautakatu" and "name:sv=Järngatan) but no name:fi tag exist then fill "name:fi=Rautakatu"
  • If name differ like ("name=Bläsnäsvägen" and "name:fi=Bläsnäsintie) but no name:sv tag exist then fill "name:sv=Bläsnäsvägen"

I oppose this proposal, as it will produce wrong results if the other language was only forgotten and exists. Lulu-Ann

Let's keep this on hold, until consensus is achieved. --Kslotte 11:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• A bot that checks to see if the website tag have the correct/up to date www address. It could run through the list of all web links addressed to places in OSM and see if there are 404 error messages. --Hawkeyes 13:48, 23 May 2010

Well that would be a rule to add to a Quality Assurance tool, rather than anything requiring automated edit. no? -- Harry Wood 09:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to do with the results? Add a FIXME-tag? Lulu-Ann

Sorry, forgot about this post...yes a FIXME tag would work and removing the dead link. But yes, this is something for Quality Assurance tools could do too. I have added it to the Quality Assurance discussion page.

---

• All states in the USA have Interstate Highways, U.S. Highways, and state highways. Creating relations for the first two is pretty close to being done, but the state highways are a daunting task. This could be automated because most (maybe all) of them have "State Highway ###" in their name as a tiger:name_base=*. Given one terminus, it shouldn't be difficult to follow a road and add all continuations that match a certain pattern to a relation. The relations would need to be cleaned up by hand, but this would remove a lot of the tedium. It also has uses for other imports than just TIGER. --BigPeteB 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(I'd be willing to write this myself, but would need some guidance on how to access the data, and how to not slam the server. Once I have the data I know what to do ^_^ --BigPeteB 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

---

• There's been discussion about a bot that would search for addr:street=* tags, look for a matching street nearby, and add the node or building to a relation, probably removing the addr:street=* tag in the process. This could be done for exact matches, and then expanded to include fuzzy matches (e.g., lots of TIGER data still has abbreviations like "Pky" instead of "Parkway"). --BigPeteB 14:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose There is not yet a consensus in discussions about addr:street vs relation. There is 25k associatedStreet relations and 1.1m ways with addr:street, seems like people go for the addr:street method. --Gorm 00:41, 26 October 2010 (BST)

Oppose Relations are worse than addr:street, because they are more complex to edit (and that's what really matters, data users can work with both formats). I'd more likely accept a bot that throws out the unnecessary associatedStreet relations than one that adds even more of them. --Tordanik 14:09, 26 October 2010 (BST)

---

• To clean up old style tagging, I propose a bot that

foreach element with place_name
{
   if (!isset(name)) rename 'place_name' to 'name';
   if (place_name==name) delete 'place_name';
   if (place_name!=name and !isset(is_in)) rename 'place_name' to 'is_in';  //Controversial?
   foreach(language code)
   {
      same as above (place_name:en -> name:en etc.).;
   }
   if (!isset(place)) set place=locality;                                   //Even more controversial??
}

(I would be happy with just the two first tests) --Gorm 00:41, 26 October 2010 (BST)

---

• A bot which checks the turn:lanes=*: that tag isn't immediate, it needs much of attention and missing a lane or inverting turn:lanes:forward with turn:lanes:backward isn't unusual. The bot should (at least) verify whether the total of lanes indicated is more/less than indicated in lanes=* and, in the one-way roads, if there is a turn:lanes:forward or turn:lanes:backward in the wrong direction. --Massic80 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)