Do people leave helpful comments when validating tasks? I lead Missing Maps sessions where I'm often the only "experienced" OSMer. I do tend to include squaring/circling buildings in my demo steps, and I just bought a few cheap USB mice o have those available
More importantly, after the event I try to review at least one task per user at the event. If I invalidate that task, I will try and find another of theirs that I can validate. I'm told invalidating a task sends a message (with the comment contents) to the user. Validating a task will send a message to the user if I use @ and include their username. For tasks that would be invalid, I either make sure I mention what I fixed or I invalidate it (even if it would be quick to fix) to give the mapper a chance to see & fix what they did wrong/missed. I'm not great at reviewing, because often I find it hard to have the time and I don't find the tools fast for finding/reviewing tasks of new users. Not all users manage to use our event hashtag in the change comment. I know it's not practical to leave a message on every task reviewed, but maybe reviewers could aim to comment on ~5 tasks per reviewing session (or 10 per 100 they review, etc). I appreciate those who do a lot of viewing. 100% green looks better than 100% orange. >From Newcastle, Gregory (LivingWithDragons) On 17 April 2016 at 23:30, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > And Jo hasn't been validating all that much building related tasks lately. > He only started again about a day ago, due to a Mapathon happening nearby > to him... > > Jo got distracted validating schools in Uganda and doing interesting stuff > with Python to add those to Wikidata as well. Or creating spreadsheet > formulas to help others add stuff caught in spreadsheets. > > Anyway, so even Jo gets tired of squaring the lot of them. > > I don't know if it's superimportant to make them rectangular. When I do > validate buildings, I like them to be squared because, indeed, I think > trapezoid shaped buildings look ugly when rendered. If they would be > trapezoid shaped in reality, this would probably not bother me though. > > Jo > > > > > 2016-04-17 23:19 GMT+02:00 john whelan <[email protected]>: > >> Just to recap the problems, we start with iD not displaying the >> buildings in the tile, whether this is because the time has lapsed and a >> second mapper has started on the tile or iD not showing all the detail I'm >> not concerned with the reason simply the fact that to me its not reliable. >> >> Then we have mappers not using mice and not zooming in. >> >> Huts seem routinely to be one mapped correctly then all the next ones >> people come across are cut and paste of the first. This means the size of >> many is incorrect. >> >> We have an expectation that if we look at the area of the building we can >> estimate the population. >> >> So we end up with a lot of approximately mapped buildings which we then >> ask people to square. When we square we are approximating again which >> means the accuracy for building area goes down even further. >> >> Whilst Jo is happy to carefully inspect each building after squaring I >> probably don’t have the patience when faced with a large number and I >> suspect a fair number of validators feel the same. Especially when its >> faster to go in delete the lot and remap with JOSM building_tool plugin. >> >> I think we can assume that a four sided building will have four sides >> when mapped. >> >> I personally think that a squared building looks better but from a >> functional point of view we know there is a building there, the aid workers >> have a map which shows them the location and if the four sides aren't >> perfectly square they will still be able to recognise it. >> >> My personal view is for four sided buildings some sort of image >> recognition software as the first pass followed by validation would give us >> much better accuracy and probably be faster. >> >> My second choice would be to use something like the building_tool plugin >> for JOSM. It would give us much better accuracy and people might even >> manage to get the building lined up with the four corners of the image. >> >> We could of course clone Jo but that might be difficult. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> >> On 17 April 2016 at 14:40, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> I'm validating tasks with many buildings in it and even though we >>> stressed on it for the Mapathon, I still find quite a few of them not being >>> made rectangular. >>> >>> So I started using this search to find all the buildings with 4 nodes: >>> >>> building inview nodes:4 >>> Square them all, then search like this: >>> building parent modified >>> >>> So you can add all the buildings which have nodes that moved to the todo >>> list. Then you can use ] quickly to review them and see if it still makes >>> sense. use 'w' to move their nodes if needed, followed by 'q'. Then ']' >>> again to move to the next one. This makes it relatively efficient without >>> losing accuracy. It definitely beats ]q]q]q]q]q] :-) >>> >>> Then search again using: >>> >>> building inview nodes:5- >>> >>> to review the ones with more nodes. >>> >>> building inview nodes:-9 >>> >>> also works to exclude round buildings. >>> >>> Jo >>> >>> >>> >>> 2016-04-15 1:23 GMT+02:00 john whelan <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> >2. Validation - either invalidate or fix. >>>> >>>> > >>>> Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own >>>> or the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be >>>> fixed in the validation step. >>>> >>>> I think less well under half of the mapped tiles in HOT have been >>>> validated and of those that have I'd say another 20+% wouldn't meet my >>>> personal standards and 50+% wouldn't meet Jo's. I admit my personal >>>> validation standard is aimed more at making sure what is there is >>>> reasonably correct according to the project instructions. >>>> >>>> So are you suggesting gold standard validation ie JOSM plugin todo >>>> list and each building is examined carefully before squaring? >>>> >>>> Is some form of bulk squaring acceptable? On the grounds its better >>>> than nothing? >>>> >>>> If the tiles get invalidated who do we expect to come back and fix >>>> them? Remember 99% of the "unoffical" maperthon mappers will never return. >>>> >>>> In the case of projects that have many of these types of buildings >>>> which may not be attractive to validate should we just ignore the problem >>>> and hope one day someone will gold plate validate the project. It may even >>>> happen. >>>> >>>> Remember that validation is voluntary and validators can choose which >>>> projects to validate on and which to just ignore. >>>> >>>> I accept some of the big organised groups probably think they have >>>> proper training on their organised maperthons and tame validators to map >>>> their particular projects so for them the problem doesn't exist but think >>>> in terms of HOT generally, think in terms of the maperthons that take place >>>> with no experienced mappers. They exist. >>>> >>>> I understand it is not an easy question and there are very different >>>> view points but I think we need to have the discussion and attempt to reach >>>> some sort of consensus of how to get the most out of the limited resources >>>> we have rather than have individual validators make their own pragmatic >>>> decisions. One of which is delete them all and remap, its faster. >>>> >>>> Cheerio John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14 April 2016 at 18:33, Clifford Snow <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped >>>>>> buildings would be? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Determine the cause(s) of the poorly mapped buildings. Do we need >>>>> more helpers in MM mapathons? The last one I did, we had a number of new >>>>> mappers. Those of us helping were stretched just answering questions. Not >>>>> being able to spend time going over people work. And yes - we did teach >>>>> squaring buildings. We also recommended people bring a mouse to the >>>>> session. One of our team brought extra for people to use and I even lent >>>>> mine out. Drawing features without a mouse is difficult. We've even >>>>> suggested to Red Cross that they have a bag of mice to lend during MM >>>>> events. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Validation - either invalidate or fix. >>>>> >>>>> Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own >>>>> or the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be >>>>> fixed in the validation step. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Clifford >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> @osm_seattle >>>>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us >>>>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> HOT mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > > -- Gregory [email protected] http://www.livingwithdragons.com
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
