On 2019-06-07 04:52, Matthew Gibb wrote: > - Validate! Simply find a project and dive in!
While http://www.missingmaps.org/validate/ and http://www.missingmaps.org/assets/downloads/MissingMaps_validation_josm_en.pdf offer practical instructions on how to begin about the validation business, I feel a gap in guidance on what happens after invalidation. The advice about how to express constructive criticism in comments is a good start, but then what ? Even the Organised Editing guidelines only mention "_plans for a "post-event clean up" to validate edits, especially if the activity introduces new contributors to OpenStreetMap_" but omit details. The contributor is an ephemeral drive-by account set for a mapathon, the contributor isn't aware of his Openstreeetmap inbox, the contributor doesn't care that much about quality, the contributor understands that his changeset doesn't satisfy quality expectations but has no idea how to proceed... There are many reasons but the common result is that a validation comment will lead to no action at all: most contributors of bad data do not clean-up after themselves. Some projects, such as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Trains_of_Botswana_mapathon have clear plans: _"A few days after the event, the core team will look at the common QA tools (OSMI, Osmose, Keepright) to repair anything that might have slipped through the cracks_" - but foisting janitorial responsibilities upon experts doesn't scale: as much as some enjoy strolling in the garden and pulling the occasional weed, it is not a popular hobby. Worse, those rare resources spent correcting bad data may easily make the net value negative. I do not have a solution, but I wish to stress one observation: the further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality rather than quantity might be a step in that direction.
|
On 2019-06-07 04:52, Matthew Gibb wrote:
While http://www.missingmaps.org/validate/ and http://www.missingmaps.org/assets/downloads/MissingMaps_validation_josm_en.pdf offer practical instructions on how to begin about the validation business, I feel a gap in guidance on what happens after invalidation. The advice about how to express constructive criticism in comments is a good start, but then what ? Even the Organised Editing guidelines only mention "plans for a “post-event clean up” to validate edits, especially if the activity introduces new contributors to OpenStreetMap" but omit details. The contributor is an ephemeral drive-by account set for a mapathon, the contributor isn't aware of his Openstreeetmap inbox, the contributor doesn't care that much about quality, the contributor understands that his changeset doesn't satisfy quality expectations but has no idea how to proceed... There are many reasons but the common result is that a validation comment will lead to no action at all: most contributors of bad data do not clean-up after themselves. Some projects, such as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Trains_of_Botswana_mapathon have clear plans: "A few days after the event, the core team will look at the common QA tools (OSMI, Osmose, Keepright) to repair anything that might have slipped through the cracks" - but foisting janitorial responsibilities upon experts doesn't scale: as much as some enjoy strolling in the garden and pulling the occasional weed, it is not a popular hobby. Worse, those rare resources spent correcting bad data may easily make the net value negative. I do not have a solution, but I wish to stress one observation: the further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality rather than quantity might be a step in that direction. |
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
