Is the problem really “all import=yes” roads? Ultimately it’s a human that presses the button to add the data, and I’d expect that different people will have different quality thresholds. To take an example from elsewhere, in an African semi-import by several mappers it was clear that there was one whose quality threshold was lower than the others (and in that case adding lots of duplicates). After engaging with everyone involved there we ended up reverted only that one contributor’s additions and letting everyone else continue - it got rid of most of the problems and left most of the valid additions.
If you have not got time to comment on changesets, then the DWG (just like most OSM mappers all volunteers also) are unlikely to have be able to analyse the type and scale of the problems, and other mappers in Thailand who may not frequent this forum won’t know either. It’s great to see the examples posted here (and a link to the actual data would make those much more useful), but without specific details we simply don’t know who the main offenders are, and without any comment to reply to we don’t know their side of the story.
With regard to problem editors, what we’d like to be able to do is:
-
See comments made about a particular mapper’s work
-
See that mapper either not respond or do the same sort of thing again.
-
If they continue creating the same problems despite being told about them we can then take action against that mapper.
With regard to problem data, the wiki page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback is a summary of the options available (perl revert scripts and JOSM). The two main problems with any approach are:
-
Identifying the data to be reverted.
-
Deciding what to do with data that has been edited by other mappers afterwards (undo all their changes, keep all their changes, or review after the revert)
The approach with the perl revert scripts is generally “throw all problem data at the script, and then subject to (4) above, handle any remaining problems”. With JOSM you’d go backwards through all changes and interactively handle (4) as you go. Depending on the individual situation either of the two main options (or even some other approach) may be better.