Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing
On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple online screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is where you come in. What screen capturing software package is it? I believe it is http://www.usertesting.com/ Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing
On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple online screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is where you come in. What screen capturing software package is it? I believe it is http://www.usertesting.com/ So, a Windows only client: http://www.usertesting.com/popups/ApplicantFAQs.aspx Feel free to suggest something 'better' then. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing
I think it's great that something is being done on this. Personally I would suggest finding a few volunteers to be tested and sit in a room with them. You don't need a lot of people to find the key issues and I think you get more from seeing them do it in person and having them think out loud rather than using remote screen recording software. I've posted this before but I highly recommend this book on usability testing, Don't make me think, it's a very quick read: http://amzn.to/9A5LTz Just my few cents! On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple online screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is where you come in. What screen capturing software package is it? I believe it is http://www.usertesting.com/ So, a Windows only client: http://www.usertesting.com/popups/ApplicantFAQs.aspx Feel free to suggest something 'better' then. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing
Will see what I can do, though not quite sure if I'll be able to make it to SF or not. But would be happy to find some volunteers and do a few usability tests in Denver before then, and record them so others can see them (in SF or wherever). Obviously would be good to have some scenarios worked out on the wiki before doing that. Incidentally, I summarized what I think are some of the key points from the Don't make me think book (and my general experience) on usability, with some geo-examples, in a recent 5 minute talk at Ignite NoCo (Northern Colorado), in case anyone is interested: http://vimeo.com/15015261 On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:54 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: sounds like you should join us in SF! On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Peter Batty wrote: I think it's great that something is being done on this. Personally I would suggest finding a few volunteers to be tested and sit in a room with them. You don't need a lot of people to find the key issues and I think you get more from seeing them do it in person and having them think out loud rather than using remote screen recording software. I've posted this before but I highly recommend this book on usability testing, Don't make me think, it's a very quick read: http://amzn.to/9A5LTz Just my few cents! On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple online screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is where you come in. What screen capturing software package is it? I believe it is http://www.usertesting.com/ So, a Windows only client: http://www.usertesting.com/popups/ApplicantFAQs.aspx Feel free to suggest something 'better' then. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging a national forest boundary
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I'm importing the USFS data for the Ocala National Forest boundary. There's the actual forest boundary, and there are private inholdings inside the boundary that are not owned by the USFS. For flexibility, I'm making a multipolygon for each. But which one is the real boundary? What tags go on each? You're creating separate multipolygons for each of the private inholdings? You should be creating one multipolygon with several internal ring ways as inner members of the multipolygon relation. The whole multipolygon relation should have whatever tags you've decided on and the member ways should not have any tags. That's what I'm doing. But I then have two multipolygons: one for the forest boundary and one for this boundary minus the inholdings. The difference is nontrivial, since some of the inholdings go right up to the forest boundary, implying that the forest actually in some way includes these inholdings. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging a national forest boundary
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I'm importing the USFS data for the Ocala National Forest boundary. There's the actual forest boundary, and there are private inholdings inside the boundary that are not owned by the USFS. For flexibility, I'm making a multipolygon for each. But which one is the real boundary? What tags go on each? You're creating separate multipolygons for each of the private inholdings? You should be creating one multipolygon with several internal ring ways as inner members of the multipolygon relation. The whole multipolygon relation should have whatever tags you've decided on and the member ways should not have any tags. That's what I'm doing. But I then have two multipolygons: one for the forest boundary and one for this boundary minus the inholdings. The difference is nontrivial, since some of the inholdings go right up to the forest boundary, implying that the forest actually in some way includes these inholdings. Are you manufacturing the forest boundary outer ring or is it coming from the shapefile? I don't think you should imply that there is a natural=forest boundary logically separate from the National Forest's boundary. Assuming you're using USFS's shapefiles, there should be one thing in there: the boundary of the national forest. If there are holes in the forest anywhere (including directly on the external border), then they should be inner polygons of a multipolygon. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging a national forest boundary
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you should imply that there is a natural=forest boundary logically separate from the National Forest's boundary. Assuming you're using USFS's shapefiles, there should be one thing in there: the boundary of the national forest. If there are holes in the forest anywhere (including directly on the external border), then they should be inner polygons of a multipolygon. There are two separate definitions of what the national forest is. On http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5192654.pdf there's the dark green line (national forest boundary), but not everything inside it is light green fill (national forest land). Both are in the shapefiles. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging a national forest boundary
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you should imply that there is a natural=forest boundary logically separate from the National Forest's boundary. Assuming you're using USFS's shapefiles, there should be one thing in there: the boundary of the national forest. If there are holes in the forest anywhere (including directly on the external border), then they should be inner polygons of a multipolygon. There are two separate definitions of what the national forest is. On http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5192654.pdf there's the dark green line (national forest boundary), but not everything inside it is light green fill (national forest land). Both are in the shapefiles. Thanks for the example. I would suggest using a border/boundary tag for the national forest boundary area and a landuse tag for the national forest land. I don't think there are any globally accepted values for this particular usecase, though. The national park/forest situation in the US is pretty unique. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging a national forest boundary
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the example. I would suggest using a border/boundary tag for the national forest boundary area and a landuse tag for the national forest land. Yes, that's what I was thinking: boundary=protected_area for the outer boundary (not going to try to figure out which subtags) and landuse=forest for the inner. The inner should probably have a bit more though to say that it's a national forest. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing
Peter, If you are able to do some tests in Denver I would like to help. Leslie From: Peter Batty pe...@ebatty.com To: SteveC st...@asklater.com Cc: OSM-talk Openstreetmap t...@openstreetmap.org; Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com; talk...@openstreetmap.orgopenstreetmap Openstreetmap talk-us@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:07:42 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing Will see what I can do, though not quite sure if I'll be able to make it to SF or not. But would be happy to find some volunteers and do a few usability tests in Denver before then, and record them so others can see them (in SF or wherever). Obviously would be good to have some scenarios worked out on the wiki before doing that. Incidentally, I summarized what I think are some of the key points from the Don't make me think book (and my general experience) on usability, with some geo-examples, in a recent 5 minute talk at Ignite NoCo (Northern Colorado), in case anyone is interested: http://vimeo.com/15015261 On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:54 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: sounds like you should join us in SF! On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Peter Batty wrote: I think it's great that something is being done on this. Personally I would suggest finding a few volunteers to be tested and sit in a room with them. You don't need a lot of people to find the key issues and I think you get more from seeing them do it in person and having them think out loud rather than using remote screen recording software. I've posted this before but I highly recommend this book on usability testing, Don't make me think, it's a very quick read: http://amzn.to/9A5LTz Just my few cents! On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple online screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is where you come in. What screen capturing software package is it? I believe it is http://www.usertesting.com/ So, a Windows only client: http://www.usertesting.com/popups/ApplicantFAQs.aspx Feel free to suggest something 'better' then. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging a national forest boundary
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I'm importing the USFS data for the Ocala National Forest boundary. There's the actual forest boundary, and there are private inholdings inside the boundary that are not owned by the USFS. For flexibility, I'm making a multipolygon for each. But which one is the real boundary? What tags go on each? You're creating separate multipolygons for each of the private inholdings? You should be creating one multipolygon with several internal ring ways as inner members of the multipolygon relation. The whole multipolygon relation should have whatever tags you've decided on and the member ways should not have any tags. That's what I'm doing. But I then have two multipolygons: one for the forest boundary and one for this boundary minus the inholdings. The difference is nontrivial, since some of the inholdings go right up to the forest boundary, implying that the forest actually in some way includes these inholdings. I think you two might be talking past each other. I am slightly fuzzy on multipolygons, but I think the notion is that a multipolygon has a number of outer rings, and a number of inner rings, and it defines the area that consists of points within an outer ring and not within an inner ring. So in the national forest/inholdings case, I think you have a polygon (closed way) that is the boundary (typically drawn strongly on a traditional topo), labeled as the forest boundary. Then you have a polygon for each inholding, with no particular tags required. And then a multipolygon with the forest boundary as outer and all the inholdings as inner. Sort of related, landuse= tags and landcover tags (which we don't seem to have) should be separate. I haven't had time to dig into this, but I think it would be really useful if someone figured out what the taxonomies were in the various professional disciplines that deal with these issues, and just adopted one of them. OSM seems to insist on reinventing everything, and for replacing proprietary software and proprietary data that's great, but when entire research fields have argued about the right way to divide up land cover, it seems a shame to start over. pgpV9S3xK1UDf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tagging a national forest boundary
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: I think you two might be talking past each other. I am slightly fuzzy on multipolygons, but I think the notion is that a multipolygon has a number of outer rings, and a number of inner rings, and it defines the area that consists of points within an outer ring and not within an inner ring. So in the national forest/inholdings case, I think you have a polygon (closed way) that is the boundary (typically drawn strongly on a traditional topo), labeled as the forest boundary. Then you have a polygon for each inholding, with no particular tags required. And then a multipolygon with the forest boundary as outer and all the inholdings as inner. Bloody hell, I know this. The problem is that some of the inholdings touch the boundary, so they're actually outer ways (and the portion of the boundary there is nothing): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.99352lon=-81.64891zoom=15layers=Mrelation=1202373 Yet the boundary is still something official. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
