Hi,
On the subject of validation.
As someone who now spends most of their mapping time validating, I think
we 'sell' it the wrong way. I only use the validation button in JOSM now
if I think I am going to find something, and generally use the
HOT-Validate paint Style (Well worth trying if you're a JOSM user, even
if you don't validate). But I think even that is too much of a
requirement. I have seen some excellent mapping by iD & Potlatch users &
I would like to see some of them carrying out validating - if they are
capable of mapping to such a high standard then they are perfectly
capable of zooming in to look at others work & saying 'yes', 'yes but',
or 'no'. I rarely use the 'no' option and to be honest it could just as
easily be an experienced mapper because it generally means there is a
significant portion of the square not mapped (I like to think the
imagery didn't load properly & that was why they missed the village
entirely!)
Mapping =
I'd like to see us rewrite the manuals, wiki's, slideshows etc., so they
show mapping for HOT needs roads connected, traced at a suitable scale &
classed more or less correctly (I don't think we should get too hung up
about this - its often only when you are looking at an area of several
squares in size that you can work out which are the primary, secondary,
tertiary etc - get it traced, tag what it looks like & make sure that
someone with an overview alters the tags later if need be). Buildings
square or round and as accurate as they can be within reason. Rivers
traced. leisure= common & amenity=school where appropriate - anything
else specific to the project.
Validating=
Make sure that Mapping = was done ok.
It would be good to offer variety to our mappers & validating, if sold
correctly, is not difficult & can be very rewarding. 99% of the time I'm
making comments like 'All looks good, thanks'. Occasionally it's
something like 'Looks good, but can you join the roads to each other &
not the landuse=residential boundary. I've sorted it this time', I
worried for a while about sending messages to mappers about ways they
could improve, but the feedback I've had from those concerned has been
good, and I make sure I only send a message if it's obvious the person
is making the same mistake consistently - a point in case being round
huts which are not obvious unless someone points them out. (wiki entry
about validating
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/Validating_data
if I've interested you).
I'd still like a tick box in the TM so that when I want to send my
comments to the mapper, I can easily do so. But I don't think that is as
important as allowing mappers easier access to the validators comments.
Just a few thoughts - by the way, I'd welcome help from anyone who
fancies doing more validating! If you'd like it, I'm quite happy to
validate your validations until you feel more confident.
--
Nick
Volunteer 'Tallguy' for
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Tallguy
Treasurer, website & Bonus Ball admin for
http://www.6thswanleyscouts.org.uk/ ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>)
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
