Commons:Bots/Requests/OrdnanceSurveyBot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

OrdnanceSurveyBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Multichill (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Uploading images, see Commons:Batch uploading/Ordnance Survey for details

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic supervised server side import

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): At least 2 more batches

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): It's a serverside import. As fast as the servers can go

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Mediawiki, so php

I already uploaded the first small batch, the result can be viewed at Ordnance Survey 1:250 000 Scale Colour Raster map. See User:Multichill#Bots for the other bots I operate. Multichill (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please go to Commons:Batch uploading/Ordnance Survey for comments about the batch upload so discussions are at one central point. Multichill (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ls OK for me. But may be will be good idea to create dedicated category for maps from this source? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
All images are in category:OS OpenData. Besides that I plan on adding Category:Ordnance Survey 1:250 000 Scale Colour Raster maps, Category:Ordnance Survey Street View maps or Category:Ordnance Survey Vector MapDistrict maps. Multichill (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant to separate this set of map from generic categories like Category:Maps of England. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In regards to: (1) "Upload bots are expected to supply correcting licensing information and categorisation (each file must belong to at least one category that describes its content or function)." (2) "The bot operator is responsible for the prompt repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly." (3) "Bot operators must ensure that they make themselves available for dealing with user queries relating to the bot," (4) "and that they promptly fix any identified bugs."
    • Are you aware of these four points and will you proceed accordingly? -- User:Docu at 19:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Sure, why are you asking me this exactly? Multichill (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I wasn't sure about this. In general, I think you are slow to deal with (3). Please provide us with an overview of issues for each of your other bots that still need to be fixed per (2)/(4) and indicate when and how you plan to go about fixing them. -- User:Docu at 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Don't play games with me. This looks like a deliberate attempt to derail and stall this bot request by doing vague accusations. I understand you don't like your third fail, but that doesn't give you the right to try to get "revenge". Ask clear questions and you'll get clear answers. Vague questions will be ignored. Multichill (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

← I think my question is sufficiently clear, but it's from this type of attitude of yours when I addressed previously problems with some of your bots, that I made me wonder if you were aware of the above four points. Given the amount of time I spent to help you fix your uploads and address the issues before, I think you should reconsider your position.

To help you get started with the list, here is a list of your other bots:

Outstanding problems to be resolved:

A full list will make it easier to assess this request. -- User:Docu at 08:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're merely supporting my previous statement.
  1. This was not an import error, this was an error in the Geograph database (some fields where not updated when a user changed coordinates). This is a very small subset of the images (only images for which the coordinates were changed at Geograph). This will get fixed someday, not really serious
  2. Was already fixed by Jarekt.
Go bug someone else. Multichill (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
✓ Approved Raised concerns bear no relation to this bot. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It relates to the operator and his way of dealing with issues brought up (check e.g. this). -- User:Docu at 18:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to archive this as completed and approved? ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)