Bryan Housel proposed HOT host a custom version of iD with only the tags appropriate to HOT. He said it would be very easy to make this happen and that other groups already do this. This seems the best solution. How quickly can the last version of ID be deployed for HOT tasks?
Hopefully the tag system in the last version of ID has not been thrown out as it was organized in a way that made it easy to tag a line, an area, and a point. It makes a good starting point. We need a clear, concise and straightforward path to HOT’s having it’s own version of ID as quickly as possible. Newer mappers used to using ID are likely to leave mapping altogether when they find the new tagging system and all the changes. Their retention is important. We need leadership to make this happen. Who can and will take the lead to quickly and efficiently make it so? Can the last version of ID be deployed for the HOT Tasking Manager in the next say 24 hours? What needs to happen for that to take place? In the long run, how can HOT move forward with hosting it’s own version of ID? Who can and will lead this effort? Which Working Group should this be assigned to? Should a special Working Group be set up just for this project? Who needs to be contacted on the developer side? What is the process of working with the developers? How will this unique version of ID be hosted, and where? What technological obstacles are there to making this happen quickly? Can ID be customized for each Activation so only those tags asked for in the Instructions are included? If not immediately, then when? There are a plethora of tags in the last version of ID that are unused or outdated. They should be cleaned up. Which working group should do this tag clean up? Can this be done after the custom version (the last version) of ID is put in place? Heather, can you direct this and help make it happen quickly so those new to mapping and used to using ID are not discouraged and leave mapping with HOT altogether? Or would Russ or Blake be appropriate for this task? I am enthusiastic about making this happen, and volunteer. I was fairly expert in the last version of ID, my expertise is in User Interface and supporting the effort. Suzan On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:35 AM, john whelan <[email protected]> wrote: HOT is slightly different to normal OSM in that we normally use a standardised subset of OSM tags, have a formal validation process, we do a lot of training and I think there is much more communication between mappers. Looking at the OSM map of my local area one of the things that stood out was the variety of tags used. Many assets had been mapped and tagged but not in the way that the rendering systems understood and finding the problem ones one at a time in JOSM was not fun. Igor was very nice to me and added a feature to Maperitive which allows you to export all the tags to a spreadsheet file, sort them and the none standard terms according to the OSM wiki map features standout very quickly. Touch them and you get cries of but I mapped it and that's the way I want it spelt, even though its impossible to print it. You might like to try it in your local area by the way you'll probably find all sorts of hidden gems, and its a useful validation tool for project managers as well. So for general OSM use having consistency in tags and what is seen on the mapping tools isn't quite so important as it is to HOT. HOT builds on the OSM environment. We have a much more formal approach. Miss-tag something and a validator, if we have one will quietly or not so quietly, correct your work to the tag values requested in the instructions. The standardised set of OSM tags are those in the OSM wiki map features or some other part of the wiki such as the African highway bit. For ease of use these should be the same values as the mapper sees when mapping. They should not have to have a look up table that says if the instructions say highway=unclassified then if you are using iD use minor road etc. Adding a line to the instructions to say if you're using iD then do this but if JOSM use that, and if you're using OSMAnd do this isn't that helpful. You have over a thousand projects to go back over and update the instructions. Then you get to the validators. We don't have enough, when we have projects that have validators sitting on them the completion rates are better etc. Are we now complicating life for validations because if the mapper is calling something an apple and the validator an orange then its probable that miscommunication will occur. At the moment I'm unable to see any simple solution, more use of JOSM within HOT would at least keep the tag values the same and we could discuss what they should be. I'm not quite sure how having a Community Manager will help in this situation. I'm fairly certain that some of our most productive mappers and validators are quite happy to simply sit quietly mapping rather than join in the community. Cheerio John On 6 March 2016 at 01:14, Heather Leson <[email protected]> wrote: Hi folks, It is super hard to create software for everyone, especially such a diverse community like OSM. First and foremost, everyone is a volunteer. OSM and HOT are indeed growing. From the notes I ascertain a few actions: 1. Better communication and training on the tools and some work on user guides. The training working group could use a hand, including technical writers and storytelling to make things as easy as possible. 2. Strengthen the feedback and collaboration between all the types of contributors to support the developers and every stage of mapper. There is the technical working group. Maybe we need to have an open technology call just to get to know each other and ask questions. 3. More in person conversations, online training/discussion sessions Blake and Russell have been running Saturday Mapathons online to help folks. Mailing lists are often flat communications. What I mean by this is that we often get caught up in the details and forget to give thanks. What makes OSM and HOT special is that we are all growing. This means some 'growing joys' to figure out a balance. There are simply only so many hours in a volunteer's day. Truly the Board and ED dream of getting a Community Manager in place to help make these items function quicker. Until then, we need to continue to count on each other. Heather Heather Leson [email protected] Twitter: HeatherLeson Blog: textontechs.com On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Russell Deffner <[email protected]> wrote: Feasible – maybe with some major discussion with Tech WG and such. Desirable – In my opinion, I think so; and actually want to ‘go a step further’ in the future for doing Activation simulations and have a ‘sandbox’ stack where we can ‘inject’ bad data for validation and such – but that’s maybe my personal HOT pipedream :) – on the more tangible/near-term level, we have actually discussed having a ‘built-in editor/custom iD for projects’; we do some of that (and it’s much easier) with JOSM presets/remote control, etc. =Russ From: Matt Sidor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 3:47 PM To: Suzan Reed; Russell Deffner; [email protected] Subject: Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users Hi, Just a thought, but would it be feasible/desirable to fork the ID editor project for HOT-specific use cases? I'm imagining that the user interface could become more dynamic to match specific tasks, e.g. only give the user classification options that match the particular task at hand. If a user felt more comfortable with OSM edits and wanted to go beyond the task scope, they could open the general OSM ID editor instead. I think this could allow more inexperienced users to contribute to HOT tasks without becoming confused by all the different classification options available and potentially selecting the wrong ones. /matt sidor On Sat, Mar 5, 2016, 2:37 PM Suzan Reed <[email protected]> wrote: Apologies for getting a little hot about this issue. It’s not helpful nor does it assist in finding a healthy solution for all, developers and users alike. Let’s hope a compromise can be achieved. Having something as simple as road-unclassified removed and changed to road-minor may be a good idea, but let’s hope there is a middle way to keep all tags consistent between editors and new mappers happy. S On Mar 5, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Russell Deffner <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Suzan and all, Sorry I am not able to fully participate in this matter as I'm not much of an iD user (still prefer P2 for in-browser editing). But, I don't think any Devs in the whole OSM workflow are 'in the clouds'; most of them are active members of various mailing lists, etc. But, my main concern is that this discussion is on just the HOT list and I think iD team has their own? Probably someone can loop you into their discussion channel(s) so these concerns don't fall on 'deaf ears' and/or the 'right ears' never hear your message. Also, we should all know that the tagging scheme is 'loose' and I think this is more about them changing the 'suggested tags' versus actual tags, which I still don't typically use presets or the gui on potlatch, I go to the wiki if I'm not sure what tag to use; most are in my head :) Thanks, =Russ -----Original Message----- From: Suzan Reed [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 2:23 PM To: john whelan; Richard Fairhurst Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users The changes to ID were clearly made without any regard to the significant impact it would have on tens of thousands of mappers around the world. Although as you state OSM developers see themselves as above consulting with others on the impact of their work, that is arrogance. If they want to walk out because they can’t be team players and develop for real people doing real mapping, let them go. They shouldn’t be a part of the organization. There is no reason thousands of ID users need to accept the dictates of a few developers who never gave one thought of the impact it would have on other people, thousands of pages of documentation, hundreds of videos, and all the monetary and human costs their changes would make. Yes, some of the changes are interesting and good, but reality needs to be inserted into the process and they need to know how their work impacts the mapping community around the world and that what they did is not good. There is a middle ground, and yet from what you say, they are too “in the clouds” to even consider it. That’s shameful. On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:18 AM, john whelan <[email protected]> wrote: Apols then I was thinking purely in HOT terms. In HOT terms we map, then validate which I agree is something that OSM does not normally do. JOSM is a much better tool than iD for validating since it detects highways that are almost joined and catches many other errors. Many HOT projects map buildings, JOSM with the building_tool plugin has many fewer unsquared buildings than iD mappers. Also when validating I can usually tell whether the mapper has been using iD, JOSM mappers do not have nearly as many untagged ways or buildings tagged area=yes as new iD mappers. So in a HOT context moving mappers to JOSM is normally seen a progression since we need more validators and JOSM is the tool of choice for validation besides giving fewer errors. In an OSM context mappers simply map and to be honest it doesn't matter what tool they use, tags are very flexible and there is little agreement about what values should be used, its only in the HOT context that it really matters. I totally agree with you about consensus etc in OSM it can never be reached, I don't think a fork for iD for HOT is a terribly good idea keeping one version maintained is hard enough but at the same time for HOT where the turnover of new mappers is high, training and the impact of changing a tag is high and it sounds like this impact was not taken into account nor is there apparently any structure to take such things into account. Cheerio John On 5 March 2016 at 08:41, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: john whelan wrote: > When you get to a certain size you need a formal review process > before making changes and I think HOT is now at that size. Which is not at all relevant as iD is not a HOT project. OSM empowers its developers to make decisions: on openstreetmap-carto, iD, JOSM, osm.org, osm2pgsql, you name it. Most developers welcome feedback, but consensus cannot always be reached, as per the recent changes to osm-carto. The idea that you might impose a formal review process to tell non-HOT developers what to do is absolutely anathema to OSM and I think would lead to a mass walkout of developers. If you want a humanitarian-focused editor or just a humanitarian-focused set of presets, then you should host an instance of iD on hotosm.org. Otherwise, you have to accept that changes will be made. > Most sane people think in terms of moving mappers to JOSM eventually Nice insult. Actually http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/5/2/21/htm, published a fortnight ago, shows that the picture is more varied than you might think. France is 84% JOSM vs 9% Potlatch, while the UK is 47% Potlatch vs 42% JOSM. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Difficulty-in-communicating-with-iD-users-tp5869083p5869115.html Sent from the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap (HOT) mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
