Lee Carré (2021-11-21 13:46:43+00:00): @grin (et alli)

I'm in the same boat as MxxCon, re the ineffectiveness of tools to show only local changes including of large bboxes.

Further, the dismissive & presumptive attitude is disingenuous (thus I'm going to ignore your projection, baiting, and other dishonest nonsense). Especially when ignoring a cited quote from a developer of such a tool stating that, currently, there is no solution.

When OSM policy is small bboxes, then the problem is large ones (or, people ignoring sound policy for dubious reasons). Filtering is, at best, addressing the symptom. Thus it can never be a solution.
Same as with mail-abuse; telling people to ignore the problem isn't solving it. Filtering might help individuals reduce the effect for them, but that's no excuse to ignore the origin of the problem.

Just as ignoring a toxic human might preserve one's sanity by reducing the effects, but doesn't stop the toxic human from being toxic.

Large changesets have other problems.

“the word "spamming" means something else you think it does.”

Please do tell me what I think it means.

“people already told you in the linked discussion how to filter these changesets”

Please cite this viable solution, which doesn't involve ignoring a developer and/or hoster of any relevant tools. Especially given that, shortly before, you had said “Unfortunately I cannot provide a personalised solution for everyone.” which seems self-contradictory.

The attempt at changing the frame is interesting. An attempt which I reject, for many reasons, since it detracts from fundamentals.

The actual, real solution is obvious, which is what I've been pursuing (with a proven track-record) from the outset. Beyond that, was indulging my curiosity of the psyche involved in disclaiming any responsibility for one's own actions, and other evasive manoeuvring.

People have told you what the actual solution is, but you either (depending on interpretation) rejected or ignored it. Yet, when you receive the same response to your own suggestions, that's somehow a different story, and you merely repeat yourself. “Fascinating” as an observer of human idiosyncrasies might say.

I find it interesting that, given the nature of the cause of the true problem, and the advocacy of filtering, that said advocates fail to see where that thinking leads in the end (hint: filtering of something other than changesets).

Plus, that a very simple & reasonable request was made, yet the response is consistently evasion & deflection.

“fixing the tools you use.”

What do you propose, which is rational, effective & reasonable, in the meantime?

A tad more flippantly / facetiously, I might suggest that I was attempting to do precisely as the quoted text advises, in my opening comment. But, not all tools cooperate.

Beyond that, when using a definition of tool that only includes software, then the tools to be fixed are editors, in order to prevent misuse in the first place. Thankfully, I'm not the first to think that, and work is already underway.

Besides, contributors should be using tools to ensure that they avoid obvious problems with the changesets they choose to upload via their account. You've been told how to do that.