Hi Robert/All, I wanted to mention we'll be using iD as well for the mapping begin this week in Haiphong. It is currently the only OSM editor with decent Vietnamese support. I'm a bit concerned about conflicts during our training, but intend to use the Tasking Manager to try to avoid that.
Best, -Kate On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Banick, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John et al., > > Thanks for the update! > > Acknowledged that imagery may have to wait a while. C'est la vie — I know > you all are kept quite busy as things are. > > Regarding conflict detection, I think myself, Kareem Ahmed, and the > wonderful folks at the Kathmandu Living Labs will have a lot more > constructive feedback after our training this week. We'll keep a running log > of issues with all the softwares we're using and report back regarding the > highest priority fixes for iD. Overall I agree that a full blown versioning > editor is beyond scope for iD — we just need something a little more > user-friendly than the current error messages. > > Many thanks to Simon and the Operations Working Group for their GPX / > Waypoints help! > > Cheers, > Robert > > > Robert Banick | GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì American Red > Cross > > 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > Tel 202-303-5017 | Cell 202-805-3679 | Skype robert.banick > > > From: John Firebaugh <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:35 PM > To: Robert Banick <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, william > skora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, Tom MacWright <[email protected]>, Simon Johnson > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [HOT] The status of iD in HOT contexts/projects > > Will, Robert, > > Thanks very much for the thoughtful feedback. I've mentally updated some > priorities, and can give you a status update on a few of the items you > mentioned: > > - GPS layer: see > https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/277#issuecomment-25187237 > - Waypoint support in GPX traces: thanks to Simon Johnson's work, this will > be included in 1.2.0, which I've just submitted to OSM.org. > - Imagery offset database: this is another feature where a pull request > would greatly expedite things. It's on my radar, but not a top priority. > - Conflict detection: this could range from 'periodic preemptive check for > new data', which might be fairly simple to implement, to 'full blown > detection and resolution', which is very complex and likely out of scope > entirely for iD. It would be helpful if you could add your opinion on what > the necessary scope is and ideas for specific changes to the issue. > > cheers, > John > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Banick, Robert <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Will, >> >> Super helpful feedback. I agree with your specific points but not with the >> overall thrust of your argument. Given that I'm about to conduct a training >> next week using iD, I hope I'm right :) >> >> Some constructive responses: >> >> Simon Johnson of the British Red Cross has been working on the GPX point >> layer since last week and has submitted a pull request to have it fixed. I'm >> not sure what the status of that pull request is but selfishly hope that >> it's incorporated by next week. Tom, John et al, any ETA on that? >> >> I'm planning on using the tasking manager to organize the iD tracing, with >> the hope that we can avoid conflicts this way. I agree that conflict >> resolution is fairly poor and hope to get around it that way. Any experience >> on your end doing this? >> >> I never plan on relying on Bing anyways, since it's too fuzzy in many >> rural areas of the developing world to be of any use. That's not the fault >> of the iD team of course, just the reality of imagery availability in its >> current state. >> >> Robert >> >> Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì >> American Red Cross >> >> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 >> >> >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:49 AM >> To: william skora <[email protected]> >> Cc: John Firebaugh <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" >> <[email protected]>, Tom MacWright <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [HOT] The status of iD in HOT contexts/projects >> >> Great example of constructive feedback, Will. I'm sure that Tom, John, and >> team really appreciate it! >> >> On Sep 23, 2013 11:00 PM, "Will Skora" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Soden mentioned the interest of using iD for OSM-related >>> trainings during today's HOT tech chat. While in Northern Haiti for >>> the CAP103 project in May-June 2013, a handful of the advanced mappers >>> in Northern Haiti had learned about iD and wanted to learn how to use >>> it, and I attempted to give 2-3 informal brief walkthroughs. >>> afterwards, I wrote my experiences about it and then forgot to share >>> them with the HOT community until now and thought it would be useful >>> to share since we haven't discussed the use of iD in HOT contexts. >>> >>> First off, I truly admire the work done for iD. Its development has >>> been rapid, the developers are very friendly, humble, and responsive, >>> they set an example for the OSM developers' community. I understand >>> that iD developers have other competiting priorities to help improve >>> the editor but there's several issues that I've experienced and as a >>> result, would really hesitate to use iD in HOT contexts where these >>> issues would be appear. >>> >>> - Lack of a GPS layer >>> - you can currently upload a single GPS track to display in the >>> background, but you are not yet able to load the entire background of >>> GPS traces from OSM of a given area. >>> https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/277 >>> Although the quantity and quality of imagery sources available has >>> increased in recent years, there's still a handful of areas in the >>> world where there's no traceable imagery available, often in areas >>> where HOT has operated . In these instances, mappers still have to >>> rely solely on GPX points and GPS layers to map. >>> >>> - Lack of waypoint support in GPX traces >>> https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/1557 >>> As we often take waypoints as we often take GPS traces and write down >>> information that describes the area associated with the corresponding >>> waypoint. >>> >>> - In some areas, bing imagery is 'offset' - a road traced with bing, >>> for example, may be 30 or 50 meters away from where it is on the >>> ground. To fix this, 'offsetting the imagery' is necessary. At the >>> moment, iD has the capability to adjust imagery, but the adjustment >>> must be manually done each time a user opens iD to edit OSM. >>> Secondly, without a GPS trace layer (mentioned above), a user does not >>> know whether the data already mapped to OSM are currently offset or >>> not. This is a bit problematic to newer OSM users who may move data, >>> believing that it should match up with bing imagery. >>> https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/1124 >>> >>> - conflict detection >>> - no way to detect conflicts. This is problematic when there are >>> mapping parties and mappers are editing in areas very close to each >>> and you may be editing the same ways as your fellow users. >>> https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/1053 >>> >>> At the moment, iD is a great editor but the above issues can be quite >>> problematic in some HOT contexts (that don't have great imagery for >>> example) and would be considered dealbreakers in these HOT >>> environments. >>> >>> Given the rapid development of iD, we may even have to reasses it in >>> just a few months. Until then, we should keep iD on the back burner. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Will >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> HOT mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > > > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
