WorstFixer has commented on the following diary entries

Post When Comment
WOF#6. OSM is no more small business about 7 years ago


I want not say they are bad. They all did a lot for OpenStreetMap.

But when they have to make decisions, decisions may be flawed. Because they have to pay bills, and OSM gives them no money.

Their small business gives them money, not some “license change bot” they promised to run on April Fool’s day.

“We get no money for this” becomes universal excuse. People may ignore any OSM-related process (imports, data quality, license change) just because they “have other job”.

OSMF should hire some employees for these tasks. To have someone responsible for what they do.

WOF#5. importing id's and refs from external databases. about 7 years ago


Thanks for pointing to WIWOSM. It is indeed other case. I think of it as “url”, not “id”. It points not to some useless number. Contains human-readable text. Mainly, it is some thing really working.

“Wikipedia” tags need clean up too. Not removal. Make them follow same rules. Like not contaning whole link to wikipedia. Just language prefix and name. That is for separate discussion.

WOF#5. importing id's and refs from external databases. about 7 years ago


1) Not always true. See “ref” section.

2) See mein “database bloat hoax” post for that.

3) Show me such maintainers. I have no examples. I have no examples when it is not doable without importing IDs into OSM.

WOF#2. Thanks all the guys for promises to kill me over 7 years ago


Here is what wiki says on that:

“Ways for borders will then only have boundary=administrative and the admin_level=* for the highest border (when a country, state, county are on the same way the admin_level would be 2).”

This is performed mit full accordance to wiki.

WOF#4. Database server load over 7 years ago


I request calculations. I not believe in “that is just bad” things.

There are no problems with application servers I see. No problems with current setup for front end.

I observe database slowness. Some years ago uploading 1000 objects took minute. Now it takes 15.

Main database disk sub system is slow. It can not cope with amount of non-sequential data reads users ask.

I propose using SSD in RAID. Then wear-out will not lead to death of data. Also, wear-out happens not with SSDs manufactured lately.

You say “The only SSD disk in the data centers are the one that holds the standard layer render db. It is mostly used for writing diffs and reading a lot of random access data, the best sides of SSDs”.

That is exactly what it means. SSD contains visible database part. For rendering. Why not make same for all users?

WOF#4. Database server load over 7 years ago


That is exactly my point. I propose moving only current_ tables and index to SSD. In (unlikely) case of (both in RAID at same time) SSD failure it will be possible to reconstruct them from history tables.

SSD durability is thing to look at. If somebody proposes better SSD. But Intel 320 series is already used in OSM servers. I think nobody would have bought bad SSDs for OSM.

Compressing random access data is useless and will use up more memory.

WOF#2. Thanks all the guys for promises to kill me over 7 years ago


Thanks for pointing at Etiquette page. It must be made more visible.

I have etiquette question. Imagine user WorstFixer willing to do some edits. Imagine community posting “I found no tagging errors in this edit”. And some user with administrative privileges disagrees saying “you bloat database”. Is there any thing that can be done in such situation?

WOF#3. Database bloat hoax over 7 years ago

Dear woodpeck,

I am sorry for upsetting you too much. I did this post to state my mind. Not to piss over your work.

I stopped uploading changes for now. You can see that. I preparing letter to talk@ list with edits I want to do.

I not understand some rules.

I understand my first block. You found bad tags in my edits. You removed my bad tags and replaced them with previous bad tags. That is fine. At least understandable.

You said “contact affected persons”. I did. I got “yes, please edit”. I limited my change only to edits by that person. I stated clearly that in change set comment. You ban me. That is less understandable. But you have ban hammer and set rules here.

I am afraid of that “find consensus” thing. I see no way of understanding for sure if consensus is set.

I was trying to clearly state my mind on “database bloating” before posting to mailing list. I want to answer this argument before someone else uses it.

How can I be sure that all the people in list say “yes, upload”, I start upload, someone says “no not upload you bloat database” and you ban me again in the middle of upload?