The bottom line is, not all edits are done equally well, and do not contribute equal value to the map. Some edits, such as alternately locking and unlocking the same road day after day, contribute nothing to the map. Should those edits be rewarded at the same rate as, say, fixing a turn restriction, adding new construction, or (correctly) resolving a UR? No. Is it easy to distinguish the former from the latter, without human intervention? No.
The closest we can get, without full-time human review of edits, is to use the heuristic that more experienced editors are likely to make better quality edits, and that new editors are likely to make lower-quality edits.
One way to compensate for this is to reward the two groups differently. But that only discourages new editors from doing quality, detailed work, and gives them even more incentive to find ways to rack up points as quickly as possible.
Another way is to weed out the editors who are more interested in points than in quality, by self-selection: Limit the rate at which new editors can edit the map. Allowing new editors to make no more than (say) ten object-changes per save, or even fewer*, makes novice editors focus on map detail; limits their ability to make worthless (and potentially damaging) mass-edits for points; and prompts those who are only interested in "gaming the map" to look elsewhere for entertainment.
* In the days of Cartouche, when it was one edit per save, high-point editors were guaranteed to be motivated by quality more than by points.
The number of permitted object-changes per save should increase with editor rank--which should be based not only on number of edits, but also calendar time, forum involvement and peer review.