Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Jo]

There is the possibility of doing the following:

Search using:
Ctrl-f
building inview type:way nodes:-8

Now you have only buildings selected. (excluding buildings with more than 8
nodes, which are quite likely round buildings)

Add all of the buildings to the to do list.

Press
q

Now they're all rectangular.

Use zoom in the todo pane to jump to the first building.
Now press

]

to mark it done and jump to the next one.

If there is a problem, use

w

to improve 'way accuracy'. It works very well for buildings too.

use

q

to square the building after moving the nodes to the corners.

You can also use

x

to extrude sides (on condition the buildings are rectangular)

When in extrude mode, you can double click on the side (wall) of the
building to add nodes.

This method works very conveniently. If the buildings were drawn reasonably
well, you end up pressing  working your way through the todo list.

If you accidentally squared/flattened a round building, use Edit/Purge to
make JOSM forget about it. It will be removed from your local copy and the
version that is online won't be touched. If you wanted to change something
about it or you simply want to have your dataset complete, you can
redownload the small area where it was, of course.

It all is still more labour intensive than it should be. It would be better
to find a programmer who can fix iD to include a tool comparable to the
buildings-tools (and while they're at it, they can include extrusion as
well, really practical tools). Maybe we should propose this for next year's
GSoC... I have no idea how hard it would be to accomplish this. But all the
algorithms are already in JOSM. No idea if the licenses are compatible
though. I don't have time to go look it up. I'm too busy squaring more
buildings...

Polyglot


2016-04-26 23:30 GMT+02:00 Steffen Lohrey :

> This sounds dangerous, though, for instances when buildings have
> non-rectangular corners (which in my experience is often the case). Such a
> tool would be an invitation to unwillingly mess up such buildings.
>
>
> On 26/04/2016 17:10, Andrew Wiseman wrote:
>
> Maybe someone could build a tool in JOSM to be able to select an area of
> buildings and square them all at once? Right now you have to individually
> select them and that takes a while, because the Q button won't work if a
> node is also selected. Or maybe tweak the functionality of Q so it ignores
> nodes?
>
> I was just doing this, manually selecting non-square buildings, for an OSM
> exercise in a class I teach, it was very time consuming.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:11 PM, John Whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps another question to ask then is is it too complex for new mappers
>> to use when mapping buildings?
>>
>> If we can accept odd shaped buildings that aren't quite the right size
>> then fine it is the right tool for the job, but if we want fairly accurate
>> building sizes and square corners on squared buildings so population
>> estimates can be made then it appears from the results we see that it
>> requires more training and a higher standard of mapping than new mappers
>> are capable of with the current levels of training.  In other words it
>> doesn't matter how good a tool it is or what it is capable of if the new
>> mappers don't understand how to use it.
>>
>> And we still haven't really come to a conclusion about whether having
>> squared buildings matters.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> Paul Norman wrote:
>>
>> It's been stated a few times but since there's still confusion: iD has a
>> button to square features. It has had this feature since before it was
>> released.
>>
>> We need to stop wrongly blaming iD, as it's not productive at figuring
>> out what to change, and where.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Postbox
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 600,000 DC residents don't have a vote in Congress --
> http://www.dcvote.org/
>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing 
> listHOT@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Steffen Lohrey]

This sounds dangerous, though, for instances when buildings have 
non-rectangular corners (which in my experience is often the case). Such 
a tool would be an invitation to unwillingly mess up such buildings.


On 26/04/2016 17:10, Andrew Wiseman wrote:
Maybe someone could build a tool in JOSM to be able to select an area 
of buildings and square them all at once? Right now you have to 
individually select them and that takes a while, because the Q button 
won't work if a node is also selected. Or maybe tweak the 
functionality of Q so it ignores nodes?


I was just doing this, manually selecting non-square buildings, for an 
OSM exercise in a class I teach, it was very time consuming.


Andrew

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:11 PM, John Whelan > wrote:


Perhaps another question to ask then is is it too complex for new
mappers to use when mapping buildings?

If we can accept odd shaped buildings that aren't quite the right
size then fine it is the right tool for the job, but if we want
fairly accurate building sizes and square corners on squared
buildings so population estimates can be made then it appears from
the results we see that it requires more training and a higher
standard of mapping than new mappers are capable of with the
current levels of training.  In other words it doesn't matter how
good a tool it is or what it is capable of if the new mappers
don't understand how to use it.

And we still haven't really come to a conclusion about whether
having squared buildings matters.

Cheerio John

Paul Norman wrote:

It's been stated a few times but since there's still confusion:
iD has a button to square features. It has had this feature since
before it was released.

We need to stop wrongly blaming iD, as it's not productive at
figuring out what to change, and where. 


-- 
Sent from Postbox




___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot




--

600,000 DC residents don't have a vote in Congress -- 
http://www.dcvote.org/ 



___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Andrew Wiseman]

Maybe someone could build a tool in JOSM to be able to select an area of
buildings and square them all at once? Right now you have to individually
select them and that takes a while, because the Q button won't work if a
node is also selected. Or maybe tweak the functionality of Q so it ignores
nodes?

I was just doing this, manually selecting non-square buildings, for an OSM
exercise in a class I teach, it was very time consuming.

Andrew

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:11 PM, John Whelan  wrote:

> Perhaps another question to ask then is is it too complex for new mappers
> to use when mapping buildings?
>
> If we can accept odd shaped buildings that aren't quite the right size
> then fine it is the right tool for the job, but if we want fairly accurate
> building sizes and square corners on squared buildings so population
> estimates can be made then it appears from the results we see that it
> requires more training and a higher standard of mapping than new mappers
> are capable of with the current levels of training.  In other words it
> doesn't matter how good a tool it is or what it is capable of if the new
> mappers don't understand how to use it.
>
> And we still haven't really come to a conclusion about whether having
> squared buildings matters.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> Paul Norman wrote:
>
> It's been stated a few times but since there's still confusion: iD has a
> button to square features. It has had this feature since before it was
> released.
>
> We need to stop wrongly blaming iD, as it's not productive at figuring out
> what to change, and where.
>
>
> --
> Sent from Postbox
> 
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>


-- 

600,000 DC residents don't have a vote in Congress -- http://www.dcvote.org/

___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[John Whelan]

Perhaps another question to ask then is is it too complex for new 
mappers to use when mapping buildings?


If we can accept odd shaped buildings that aren't quite the right size 
then fine it is the right tool for the job, but if we want fairly 
accurate building sizes and square corners on squared buildings so 
population estimates can be made then it appears from the results we see 
that it requires more training and a higher standard of mapping than new 
mappers are capable of with the current levels of training.  In other 
words it doesn't matter how good a tool it is or what it is capable of 
if the new mappers don't understand how to use it.


And we still haven't really come to a conclusion about whether having 
squared buildings matters.


Cheerio John

Paul Norman wrote:
It's been stated a few times but since there's still confusion: iD has 
a button to square features. It has had this feature since before it 
was released.


We need to stop wrongly blaming iD, as it's not productive at figuring 
out what to change, and where. 


--
Sent from Postbox 

___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Paul Norman]

On 4/25/2016 12:55 PM, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
... And, why not, stimulate ID programmers to add square feature 
button :-)


It's been stated a few times but since there's still confusion: iD has a 
button to square features. It has had this feature since before it was 
released.


We need to stop wrongly blaming iD, as it's not productive at figuring 
out what to change, and where.


___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Cascafico Giovanni]

+1

Then inital crap could anyway encourage locale mappers to make it better
and  hopefully one day cadastre will open data.
Besides, I've seen lots of real non-squared buildings which would risk to
be modified by unsupervised mass editings. Furthermore non-squared stuff is
useful anyway.. Ie to count, localize, identify pre & post disaster sites.

IMHO priority now is checking for completeness and publish example pics for
learning  damage detection

... And, why not, stimulate ID programmers to add square feature button :-)

--
cascafico.altervista.org
twitter.com / 
cascafico 

Are non squared building really a big deal, apart from visually? Can we
not live at least initially with building as traced?

Cheers
Chris

On 14/04/16 at 07:42am, john whelan wrote:
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
>
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>
> > It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools
plugin
> > to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next
year.
> >
> > Jo
> >
> > 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> >
> >> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an
iD
> >> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> >> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting
all
> >> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them.
Nothing
> >> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could
then
> >> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out.
It
> >> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> >> thankless and tedious task.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Suzan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
> >>
> >> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
> >> buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or
45-degree
> >> buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would
be
> >> part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
> >> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
> >> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
> >>
> >> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way
at
> >> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice
geometric
> >> shapes using this method.
> >>
> >> One has to know the tool one is working with.
> >>
> >> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them
(over
> >> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of
squaring
> >> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> >> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
> >>
> >> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> >> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing
]q]q]q]q]q]
> >> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
> >> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark
to
> >> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming
burned out
> >> as a validator.
> >>
> >> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
> >> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
> >> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was
rather
> >> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always
new
> >> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
> >> power tool, but with iD instead.
> >>
> >> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
> >> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very
successful
> >> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
> >> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday
(also
> >> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as
I
> >> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a
validator).
> >>
> >> Polyglot
> >>
> >> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> >> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at
the
> >> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
> >>
> >> Just a suggestion!
> >>
> >> Suzan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
> >> wrote:
> >> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

>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.

>>>

First it works best when you can validate within a day or two of the work
being done.  The idea is to catch errors early on so they don't get
repeated.  Maperthons are a particular challenge the volume of work done at
a particular time and second leaving feedback to a person who will only map
once is a waste of time.  Generally speaking I'll just add missing content
rather than invalidate a tile and leave a comment, added twenty five
villages.  In Ecuador because of the volume of mapping I've just been
invalidating.

We don't have enough good validators but if you can find one and get them
to validate the project from the beginning then it has a snowball effect,
lots of green tiles gives a message this is a successful project, lots of
grey ones the opposite.  Most projects are in the lime light for about two
weeks if they don't get traction and a sort of team effect then they'll
probably never get completed.

Maperthons have another challenge buildings and iD, the matter has been
discussed already but if you can set up one or two mappers with JOSM and
the building tool that works best and we get less depressed validators.
The other big challenge of Maperthons is new mappers rarely complete a tile
so it makes it difficult for a validator to know where to check.  Get them
to split the tile as much as possible. They then stand more chance of
completing a tile.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/Validating_data

Cheerio John

On 25 April 2016 at 09:20, Gregory  wrote:

> 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  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 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Jo]

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 :

> ​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  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 :
>>
>>> >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
>>> 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

​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  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 :
>
>> >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 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Jo]

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 :

> >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  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan 
>> 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
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

>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  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan 
> 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
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan  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
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

>We care that they reflect the structure on the ground. I've mapped many
buildings that are not square. But if we are sending people into the field
to deliver aid looking for a triangle like building when the actual
building is a rectangle, we've wasted their time.

So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped buildings
would be?

Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 17:50, Clifford Snow  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:28 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> It is a data quality issue but do we even care if they are unsquared or
>> not?
>>
>
> We care that they reflect the structure on the ground. I've mapped many
> buildings that are not square. But if we are sending people into the field
> to deliver aid looking for a triangle like building when the actual
> building is a rectangle, we've wasted their time.
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

​For 95% of the buildings JOSM building_tool plugin does a very nice job
very quickly.  Three clicks and you're done.

The training material for HOT and learnOSM has improved enormously since
Nepal.

I’d probably split the world into three.  Mappers who started in OSM or who
have built up experience in OSM and know where map features is.
Individuals mapping by themselves, they have to read the instructions to
get started.  These I really don’t mind spending the time giving feedback
to, they’re likely to come back and map again.  Then we get the maperthons.

People who organise maperthons and OSM have different objectives.  OSM is
more or less map accurately following the guidelines in map features.  I
say more or less because there is a very wide range of opinion within OSM
on every matter under the sun.

Maperthons group themselves into two groups.  The first is organised often
by a group such as MSF and they have training and handouts plus experienced
mappers around to assist new mappers.  Quite often they get returning
mappers and they can be nudged towards JOSM.  They are concerned both with
mapping, building community (drinking coffee together) and spreading the
word on how wonderful MSF or whomever it is running the show is.  If I
notice problems when validating these not a big deal its comment the mapper
and bug the project manager with a bit of feedback.  Often they’ll have
simplified projects such as just map the highways and nothing else together
with simplified instructions.  If you accept that 60% of the mappers will
only map the once then iD takes less time to get started than installing
JOSM.

The second are much more difficult.  These often run by what I call social
groups of one type or another, short attention spans, real men don’t need
instructions.  If you’re lucky they’ll have a handout, if not well anything
goes and next week we’ll do something entirely different.  If you
invalidate so what, 99% won’t be back.  You’re just left with a mess.  A
group descended on a project I was watching as a validator recently.  I
wanted to contact the organiser as it was obvious they had no training at
all but no one knew who they were.  The project manager certainly didn’t
and that’s where the question comes from how do we handle these situations?

One tile I added ninety two settlements and about fifty highways to a tile
when validating, the second tile by the same mapper just got invalidated
when I saw four large settlements missed at the first glance.  In the
building projects the numbers are much higher.  It’s not unusual to see a
hundred buildings on a tile and many will not be square, I still see quite
a few area=yes rather than building=yes although that is improving.

The other problem is validation.  Mappers who haven’t completed a single
tile validating.  Go in behind them and you see all the unsquared
buildings, crossing highways etc.

Prevention is usually cheaper than remedial work.  I have great hopes for
the iD building plugin, but in the mean time the question remains what to
do about the existing unsquared buildings?

Whilst going in with the JOSM todo list plugin and examining every building
by a particular mapper is the ideal solution given the numbers involved do
we accept select the buildings by a mapper on a tile then hit the square
button?

It is a data quality issue but do we even care if they are unsquared or not?

Cheerio John​


On 14 April 2016 at 16:25, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
> and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
> they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
> doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
> behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
> results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a problem
> with how they're being instructed. Both iD and JOSM would have squared some
> of them with no problems, so switching editors or other technical solutions
> won't help here.
>
> If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a second
> problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM will come up
> with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Dale Kunce  wrote:

> I agree with Mike. This is part training, which I think we all strive to
> do a good job on. I know all the Missing Maps one stress the need to square
> buildings. It's frustrating to watch new mappers try and square stuff to
> not have it work. Simply saying they weren't trained enough is not a good
> enough answer and is short sighted for the vast majority of new mappers.


+1

My old quality training would indicate that we have a system problem.


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Dale Kunce]

I agree with Mike. This is part training, which I think we all strive to do
a good job on. I know all the Missing Maps one stress the need to square
buildings. It's frustrating to watch new mappers try and square stuff to
not have it work. Simply saying they weren't trained enough is not a good
enough answer and is short sighted for the vast majority of new mappers.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:58 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
>> and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
>> they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
>> doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
>> behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
>> results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>>
>> They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a problem
>> with how they're being instructed.
>>
> They were given 20 minutes of instruction / demonstration on a projector
> in a classroom, as well as provided with written instructions.  I am
> certainly open to - and always attempting to - improve my instruction.  But
> I feel the instruction at this event was pretty good. In any event, having
> to explain, "the 's' key will only work if you are reasonably close and
> there is no error message" is just one more thing to explain and for the
> new mappers to remember.
>
> These are not the exact buildings as those were fixed during the mapathon
> (sorry for the confusion), but at this mapathon I did walk over to more
> than one mapper and watch them square a building with the 's' key, have
> nothing happen, and then move on.  Most of the buildings they had drawn
> were not square.  I pointed out the error and they did fix their buildings.
> There should at least be an error message, something like "Failed to square
> building, please redraw with angles 90 +/- 12 degrees"
>
>>
>>
>> If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a
>> second problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM will
>> come up with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
>>
> JOSM will make the change, it may not match the imagery, but it will be
> obvious that something has changed, hopefully prompting the user to make
> adjustments and try again.
>
>>
>>
>
>> Mike
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
> and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
> they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
> doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
> behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
> results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a problem
> with how they're being instructed.
>
They were given 20 minutes of instruction / demonstration on a projector in
a classroom, as well as provided with written instructions.  I am certainly
open to - and always attempting to - improve my instruction.  But I feel
the instruction at this event was pretty good. In any event, having to
explain, "the 's' key will only work if you are reasonably close and there
is no error message" is just one more thing to explain and for the new
mappers to remember.

These are not the exact buildings as those were fixed during the mapathon
(sorry for the confusion), but at this mapathon I did walk over to more
than one mapper and watch them square a building with the 's' key, have
nothing happen, and then move on.  Most of the buildings they had drawn
were not square.  I pointed out the error and they did fix their buildings.
There should at least be an error message, something like "Failed to square
building, please redraw with angles 90 +/- 12 degrees"

>
>
> If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a second
> problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM will come up
> with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
>
JOSM will make the change, it may not match the imagery, but it will be
obvious that something has changed, hopefully prompting the user to make
adjustments and try again.

>
>

> Mike
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Paul Norman]

On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 
's' and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how 
that they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever 
asked me "why doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the 
squaring happens behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below 
are some of the results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.

Inline image 1


They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a 
problem with how they're being instructed. Both iD and JOSM would have 
squared some of them with no problems, so switching editors or other 
technical solutions won't help here.


If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a 
second problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM 
will come up with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Bryan Housel 
wrote:

> The threshold for squaring angles in iD is currently set to within +/-12
> degrees of right or straight.  This number was just chosen because it
> “feels” right, and still allows for buildings to have 15 degree angles and
> circular sections.
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/1902
>
Thanks for the info, and again, thanks for creating the iD Editor.  It
really is an amazing tool.  The stuff we are talking about here are just
minor suggested tweaks.  Regarding the 12 degree limit, If a building
doesn't have square corners in reality (e.g. round or buildings with "15
degree angles") why would one ask any editor (iD, JOSM, etc.)  to square
them? I think JOSM will square almost anything. Sometimes the result isn't
what you want, but that is obvious as the way is changed by the tool -
often dramatically.

>
>
> My advice for tracing buildings with better precision is to 1. use a mouse
> and 2. zoom in more.   People very new to mapping often forget that zooming
> in makes it much easier to trace in detail.
>
Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
[image: Inline image 1]

Mike
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Bryan Housel]

The threshold for squaring angles in iD is currently set to within +/-12 
degrees of right or straight.  This number was just chosen because it “feels” 
right, and still allows for buildings to have 15 degree angles and circular 
sections.
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/1902 


The squaring algorithm is borrowed from Potlatch, and has some known odd edge 
cases that I would like to improve when I have time for it.
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2472 



My advice for tracing buildings with better precision is to 1. use a mouse and 
2. zoom in more.   People very new to mapping often forget that zooming in 
makes it much easier to trace in detail.


Thanks, Bryan



> Bryan, Thanks for your great work on the iD Editor.  The new mappers whom I 
> have introduced to OSM through mapathons often comment about how easy the 
> process is!
> 
> A related issue with regards to the current squaring functionality is that iD 
> apparently will only square a building if it is already close to being 
> square. During mapathons we instruct mappers to draw the building and then 
> hit 's' to square.  Most of them follow directions, but the result is often 
> buildings that are not square because the tool didn't do anything, and didn't 
> warn the user that it wasn't doing anything. We now try to explain that they 
> have to check to make sure the tool did something, and if not, attempt to 
> redraw the building and click 's' again but that is more details for them 
> to handle, remember and execute.
> 
> Mike

___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

In JOSM you can search "building nodes:-7" or less which screens out the
huts.  I don't especially like doing it in a mass way but when you're met
with 200 unsquared buildings you need to tackle it in some way.  You can
further refine it by mapper name before hitting the q button.

Either prevention which is the ideal or we need to think about what to do.
At the moment we have many many buildings which are not squared.  Perhaps
someone has a tool they could use to count how many.  The options for
validators are avoid projects that map buildings.  It's easy and quick for
validators to do this from their point of view.

The validators can do an individual correction on each building, I don't
think we have enough validators to do this.  Quality is also an issue, I
recently sampled part of a fully validated building project and on the
sample I looked at there were 600+ errors found in JOSM validation, 200+
crossing buildings, multiple crossing ways etc.  Two validators names I
recognised their tiles seemed fine but some names validating I didn't and I
suspect that's where the errors were located.

Bulk squaring is an option, the other option is do nothing.  The buildings
are roughly the right size in the right place.

Which was why the original question was is squaring buildings essential?

The new building tool for iD sounds an excellent way to prevent the problem
and has my full support.

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 10:06, Severin Menard  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This would be IMHO an horrible practice, for the complex buildings skilled
> mappers took the time to map + basically all the round huts.
> As a common OSM rule is not to tag for the rendering, a new one should be
> not to distord the data because of the shortcomings of an editing tool. ID
> should propose a building tool or automatically propose to square the
> buildings to anyone having drawn a surface and tag it as a building.
> Basically it is IMHO a few hours of code vs tons of hours for validators to
> clean the crappy data. I had a brief discussion about this with someone
> from Mapbox during the Nepal activation, when it was obvious the higher
> proportion of new mappers was producing data with lower quality than usual
> during activations. People from Mapbox, please consider to improve iD in
> this way.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Severin
> Le 14 avr. 2016 11:44, "john whelan"  a écrit :
>
>> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
>> the validators.
>>
>> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
>> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools
>>> plugin to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>>
 JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an
 iD power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
 rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
 of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
 worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
 square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
 would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
 thankless and tedious task.

 Cheers!
 Suzan


 On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:

 I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
 buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
 buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
 part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.

 On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
 If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
 you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

 Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way
 at 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
 shapes using this method.

 One has to know the tool one is working with.

 When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them
 (over and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of
 squaring the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's
 extrude tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

 I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
 those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
 hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> Thanks Dale, I’m hoping to get this orthogonal drawing tool merged
> sometime next month.
>
> Being able to draw square buildings quickly in iD is a cool feature, but
> not as high priority as other things that we have been working on.
> Definitely take a look through the iD changelog at what we’ve been able to
> ship in the last few months, I’m really proud of the work done by our
> mostly volunteer contributors.
>
> Some points:
> - The squareness of buildings is not very important for rescue workers or
> other HOT partners.
> - Features can be squared or retagged very efficiently in JOSM.
> - When you see features drawn imprecisely in iD, it’s probably safe to
> assume that the user is using a laptop trackpad (i.e. no mouse), or worse,
> using a touch input device like a tablet.  Improving iD support for touch
> and pen devices is also high on my priority list.
>
> Bryan, Thanks for your great work on the iD Editor.  The new mappers whom
I have introduced to OSM through mapathons often comment about how easy the
process is!

A related issue with regards to the current squaring functionality is that
iD apparently will only square a building if it is already close to being
square. During mapathons we instruct mappers to draw the building and then
hit 's' to square.  Most of them follow directions, but the result is often
buildings that are not square because the tool didn't do anything, and
didn't warn the user that it wasn't doing anything. We now try to explain
that they have to check to make sure the tool did something, and if not,
attempt to redraw the building and click 's' again but that is more
details for them to handle, remember and execute.

Mike

>
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Dale Kunce]

+1 Mike. The need to draw square buildings is really a check to have new
mappers draw more *accurate* buildings.


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM,  wrote:
>
>>
>> Are non squared building really a big deal, apart from visually? Can we
>> not live at least initially with building as traced?
>>
> If the angles are 90+/- some little bit I don't think it would matter.
> The problem is that once you remove the requirement for squaring some
> (usually very new) mappers will draw grossly distorted buildings.  These
> are so visually unappealing as to reduce the usefulness and trustworthiness
>  of the map IMHO.
>
>  Mike
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>


-- 
sent from my mobile device

Dale Kunce
http://normalhabit.com
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM,  wrote:

>
> Are non squared building really a big deal, apart from visually? Can we
> not live at least initially with building as traced?
>
If the angles are 90+/- some little bit I don't think it would matter.  The
problem is that once you remove the requirement for squaring some (usually
very new) mappers will draw grossly distorted buildings.  These are so
visually unappealing as to reduce the usefulness and trustworthiness  of
the map IMHO.

 Mike
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Bryan Housel]

Thanks Dale, I’m hoping to get this orthogonal drawing tool merged sometime 
next month.

Being able to draw square buildings quickly in iD is a cool feature, but not as 
high priority as other things that we have been working on.  Definitely take a 
look through the iD changelog at what we’ve been able to ship in the last few 
months, I’m really proud of the work done by our mostly volunteer contributors.

Some points:
- The squareness of buildings is not very important for rescue workers or other 
HOT partners.
- Features can be squared or retagged very efficiently in JOSM.
- When you see features drawn imprecisely in iD, it’s probably safe to assume 
that the user is using a laptop trackpad (i.e. no mouse), or worse, using a 
touch input device like a tablet.  Improving iD support for touch and pen 
devices is also high on my priority list.

Bryan





> On Apr 14, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Dale Kunce <dale.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just to add to this conversation a lot of effort has already gone into a 
> building tool for iD. 
> 
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/2699 
> <https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/2699>
> 
> It looks like it hasn't been worked on for a while and needs someone to pick 
> it back up.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Pete Masters <pete.mast...@london.msf.org 
> <mailto:pete.mast...@london.msf.org>> wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
>  
> 
> My feeling would be that it needs to be invalidated. If I am managing a 
> project and I see invalidated squares, I tend to check out what the problem 
> is and sometimes get in touch with the mapper through their osm profile to 
> chat about what they are doing. I agree that invalidating should be kept as a 
> last resort and fixing up + general positive encouragement works better, but 
> if someone is repeatedly making the same mistake, an invalidated square is 
> probably helpful.
> 
>  
> 
> Just to make clear, this is just my personal opinion as someone that manages 
> a large amount of TM projects…
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Pete
> 
>  
> 
> Pete Masters 
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator 
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518 <tel:%2B44%207921%20781%20518>
> skype: pedrito1414
> 
> twitter: @pedrito1414 <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
> 
> @theMissingMaps <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject <https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>
>  
> 
> missingmaps.org <http://www.missingmaps.org/>
> msf.org.uk <http://www.msf.org.uk/>
>  
> 
> From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>] 
> Sent: 14 April 2016 13:10
> To: Pete Masters
> Cc: Jo Hannes; hot@openstreetmap.org <mailto:hot@openstreetmap.org>
> 
> Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you Pete.
> 
> Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking how 
> to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500 
> unsquared buildings.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Cheerio John
> 
>  
> 
> On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters <pete.mast...@london.msf.org 
> <mailto:pete.mast...@london.msf.org>> wrote:
> 
> From my side, I would support that proposal, John…
> 
>  
> 
> Pete
> 
>  
> 
> Pete Masters 
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator 
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518 <tel:%2B44%207921%20781%20518>
> skype: pedrito1414
> 
> twitter: @pedrito1414 <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
> 
> @theMissingMaps <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject <https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>
>  
> 
> missingmaps.org <http://www.missingmaps.org/>
> msf.org.uk <http://www.msf.org.uk/>
>  
> 
> From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>] 
> Sent: 14 April 2016 12:42
> To: Jo Hannes
> Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org <mailto:hot@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
> 
>  
> 
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for the 
> validators.
> 
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and 
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
> 
> Thanks John
> 
>  
> 
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin to 
> iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
> 
>  
> 
> Jo
> 
>  
> 
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GM

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Pete Masters]

Hi Sev, apologies - I posted that last message before I saw yours - it got
delayed for some reason...

I think I should expand a little on what I meant. I use JOSM to select
buildings for squaring at the end of validating a square. If there are
circular huts or complicated (but well-mapped) buildings, then I either do
it manually or deselect these before squaring. I would not suggest that
every validator select all buildings and hit Q at the beginning of
validating a task.

>From what I have seen, apart from those that validate by mistake (which I
do realise happens), most validators are very careful with the data.

Pete



On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Severin Menard 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This would be IMHO an horrible practice, for the complex buildings skilled
> mappers took the time to map + basically all the round huts.
> As a common OSM rule is not to tag for the rendering, a new one should be
> not to distord the data because of the shortcomings of an editing tool. ID
> should propose a building tool or automatically propose to square the
> buildings to anyone having drawn a surface and tag it as a building.
> Basically it is IMHO a few hours of code vs tons of hours for validators to
> clean the crappy data. I had a brief discussion about this with someone
> from Mapbox during the Nepal activation, when it was obvious the higher
> proportion of new mappers was producing data with lower quality than usual
> during activations. People from Mapbox, please consider to improve iD in
> this way.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Severin
> Le 14 avr. 2016 11:44, "john whelan"  a écrit :
>
>> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
>> the validators.
>>
>> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
>> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools
>>> plugin to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>>
 JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an
 iD power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
 rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
 of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
 worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
 square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
 would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
 thankless and tedious task.

 Cheers!
 Suzan


 On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:

 I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
 buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
 buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
 part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.

 On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
 If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
 you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

 Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way
 at 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
 shapes using this method.

 One has to know the tool one is working with.

 When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them
 (over and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of
 squaring the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's
 extrude tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

 I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
 those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
 hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
 unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
 the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
 as a validator.

 I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
 validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
 screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
 effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
 users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
 power tool, but with iD instead.

 Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
 advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
 at getting 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Dale Kunce]

Just to add to this conversation a lot of effort has already gone into a
building tool for iD.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/2699

It looks like it hasn't been worked on for a while and needs someone to
pick it back up.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Pete Masters <pete.mast...@london.msf.org>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> My feeling would be that it needs to be invalidated. If I am managing a
> project and I see invalidated squares, I tend to check out what the problem
> is and sometimes get in touch with the mapper through their osm profile to
> chat about what they are doing. I agree that invalidating should be kept as
> a last resort and fixing up + general positive encouragement works better,
> but if someone is repeatedly making the same mistake, an invalidated square
> is probably helpful.
>
>
>
> Just to make clear, this is just my personal opinion as someone that
> manages a large amount of TM projects…
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> *Pete Masters*
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518
>
> skype: pedrito1414
>
> twitter: @pedrito1414 <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
>
>
> @theMissingMaps <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject
> <https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>
>
>
>
> missingmaps.org <http://www.missingmaps.org/>
>
> msf.org.uk <http://www.msf.org.uk/>
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 13:10
> *To:* Pete Masters
> *Cc:* Jo Hannes; hot@openstreetmap.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
>
>
>
> Thank you Pete.
>
> Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking
> how to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500
> unsquared buildings.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters <pete.mast...@london.msf.org>
> wrote:
>
> From my side, I would support that proposal, John…
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> *Pete Masters*
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518
>
> skype: pedrito1414
>
> twitter: @pedrito1414 <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
>
>
> @theMissingMaps <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject
> <https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>
>
>
>
> missingmaps.org <http://www.missingmaps.org/>
>
> msf.org.uk <http://www.msf.org.uk/>
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 12:42
> *To:* Jo Hannes
> *Cc:* hot@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
>
>
>
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
>
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
>
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed <su...@suzanreed.com>:
>
> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> thankless and tedious task.
>
> Cheers!
> Suzan
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan <gtrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings
> in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings
> of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a
> validation workflow and could even be automated.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you
> can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>
> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
&

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[me]

Are non squared building really a big deal, apart from visually? Can we
not live at least initially with building as traced?

Cheers
Chris 

On 14/04/16 at 07:42am, john whelan wrote:
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
> 
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
> 
> Thanks John
> 
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
> 
> > It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> > to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
> >
> > Jo
> >
> > 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> >
> >> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
> >> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> >> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
> >> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
> >> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
> >> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
> >> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> >> thankless and tedious task.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Suzan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
> >>
> >> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
> >> buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
> >> buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
> >> part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
> >> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
> >> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
> >>
> >> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> >> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
> >> shapes using this method.
> >>
> >> One has to know the tool one is working with.
> >>
> >> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
> >> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
> >> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> >> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
> >>
> >> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> >> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
> >> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
> >> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
> >> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
> >> as a validator.
> >>
> >> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
> >> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
> >> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
> >> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
> >> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
> >> power tool, but with iD instead.
> >>
> >> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
> >> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
> >> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
> >> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
> >> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
> >> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
> >>
> >> Polyglot
> >>
> >> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> >> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
> >> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
> >>
> >> Just a suggestion!
> >>
> >> Suzan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
> >> wrote:
> >> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
> >> they weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
> >> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
> >> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
> >> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
> >> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
> >>
> >> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
> >> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
> >> do we get squared buildings?
> >>
> >> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Pete Masters]

Hi John,

My feeling would be that it needs to be invalidated. If I am managing a project 
and I see invalidated squares, I tend to check out what the problem is and 
sometimes get in touch with the mapper through their osm profile to chat about 
what they are doing. I agree that invalidating should be kept as a last resort 
and fixing up + general positive encouragement works better, but if someone is 
repeatedly making the same mistake, an invalidated square is probably helpful.

Just to make clear, this is just my personal opinion as someone that manages a 
large amount of TM projects…

Cheers,

Pete

Pete Masters
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
MSF UK
phone: +44 7921 781 518
skype: pedrito1414
twitter: @pedrito1414<https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>

@theMissingMaps<https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
facebook.com/MissingMapsProject<https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>

missingmaps.org<http://www.missingmaps.org/>
msf.org.uk<http://www.msf.org.uk/>

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 April 2016 13:10
To: Pete Masters
Cc: Jo Hannes; hot@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

Thank you Pete.
Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking how 
to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500 
unsquared buildings.
Thanks

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters 
<pete.mast...@london.msf.org<mailto:pete.mast...@london.msf.org>> wrote:
From my side, I would support that proposal, John…

Pete

Pete Masters
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
MSF UK
phone: +44 7921 781 518<tel:%2B44%207921%20781%20518>
skype: pedrito1414
twitter: @pedrito1414<https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>

@theMissingMaps<https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
facebook.com/MissingMapsProject<https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>

missingmaps.org<http://www.missingmaps.org/>
msf.org.uk<http://www.msf.org.uk/>

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>]
Sent: 14 April 2016 12:42
To: Jo Hannes
Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org<mailto:hot@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for the 
validators.
Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and 
squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com<mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin to 
iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.

Jo

2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed 
<su...@suzanreed.com<mailto:su...@suzanreed.com>>:
JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD power 
user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once rather than one 
at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all of them and then 
trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing worked. Maybe the iD 
team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then square all their 
buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It would be quite useful. 
Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a thankless and tedious task.

Cheers!
Suzan


On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan 
<gtrw...@gmail.com<mailto:gtrw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings in 
JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings of 
course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a 
validation workflow and could even be automated.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo 
<winfi...@gmail.com<mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you can 
start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at 15 
degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric shapes 
using this method.

One has to know the tool one is working with.

When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over and 
over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring the 
rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude tool 
easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all those 
buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q] hundreds of 
times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly unsquared buildings. 
Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to the user and validate the 
tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out as a validator.

I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to validate 
their tiles, when

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Severin Menard]

Hi,

This would be IMHO an horrible practice, for the complex buildings skilled
mappers took the time to map + basically all the round huts.
As a common OSM rule is not to tag for the rendering, a new one should be
not to distord the data because of the shortcomings of an editing tool. ID
should propose a building tool or automatically propose to square the
buildings to anyone having drawn a surface and tag it as a building.
Basically it is IMHO a few hours of code vs tons of hours for validators to
clean the crappy data. I had a brief discussion about this with someone
from Mapbox during the Nepal activation, when it was obvious the higher
proportion of new mappers was producing data with lower quality than usual
during activations. People from Mapbox, please consider to improve iD in
this way.

Sincerely,

Severin
Le 14 avr. 2016 11:44, "john whelan"  a écrit :

> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
>
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>
>> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
>> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>
>>> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
>>> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
>>> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
>>> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
>>> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
>>> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
>>> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
>>> thankless and tedious task.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Suzan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>>>
>>> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
>>> buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
>>> buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
>>> part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
>>> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
>>> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>>>
>>> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way
>>> at 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
>>> shapes using this method.
>>>
>>> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>>>
>>> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
>>> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
>>> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
>>> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>>>
>>> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
>>> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
>>> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
>>> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
>>> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
>>> as a validator.
>>>
>>> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
>>> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
>>> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
>>> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
>>> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
>>> power tool, but with iD instead.
>>>
>>> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
>>> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
>>> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
>>> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
>>> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
>>> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at
>>> the beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>>>
>>> Just a suggestion!
>>>
>>> Suzan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
>>> wrote:
>>> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
>>> they 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

Thank you Pete.

Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking
how to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500
unsquared buildings.

Thanks

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters <pete.mast...@london.msf.org> wrote:

> From my side, I would support that proposal, John…
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> *Pete Masters*
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518
>
> skype: pedrito1414
>
> twitter: @pedrito1414 <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
>
>
> @theMissingMaps <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject
> <https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>
>
>
>
> missingmaps.org <http://www.missingmaps.org/>
>
> msf.org.uk <http://www.msf.org.uk/>
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 12:42
> *To:* Jo Hannes
> *Cc:* hot@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
>
>
>
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
>
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
>
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed <su...@suzanreed.com>:
>
> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> thankless and tedious task.
>
> Cheers!
> Suzan
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan <gtrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings
> in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings
> of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a
> validation workflow and could even be automated.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you
> can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>
> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
> shapes using this method.
>
> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>
> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>
> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
> as a validator.
>
> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
> power tool, but with iD instead.
>
> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed <su...@suzanreed.com>:
> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Pete Masters]

From my side, I would support that proposal, John…

Pete

Pete Masters
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
MSF UK
phone: +44 7921 781 518
skype: pedrito1414
twitter: @pedrito1414<https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>

@theMissingMaps<https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
facebook.com/MissingMapsProject<https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>

missingmaps.org<http://www.missingmaps.org/>
msf.org.uk<http://www.msf.org.uk/>

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 April 2016 12:42
To: Jo Hannes
Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for the 
validators.
Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and 
squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com<mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin to 
iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.

Jo

2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed 
<su...@suzanreed.com<mailto:su...@suzanreed.com>>:
JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD power 
user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once rather than one 
at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all of them and then 
trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing worked. Maybe the iD 
team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then square all their 
buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It would be quite useful. 
Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a thankless and tedious task.

Cheers!
Suzan


On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan 
<gtrw...@gmail.com<mailto:gtrw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings in 
JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings of 
course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a 
validation workflow and could even be automated.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo 
<winfi...@gmail.com<mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you can 
start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at 15 
degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric shapes 
using this method.

One has to know the tool one is working with.

When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over and 
over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring the 
rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude tool 
easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all those 
buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q] hundreds of 
times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly unsquared buildings. 
Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to the user and validate the 
tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out as a validator.

I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to validate 
their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating screencasts and posting 
a link to it in the comment field. This was rather effective, but it still is 
rather time consuming and there are always new users coming in, which, for some 
reason, were not trained with JOSM the power tool, but with iD instead.

Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the 
advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful at 
getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to something 
new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also because I 
don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I moved on to 
other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).

Polyglot

2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed 
<su...@suzanreed.com<mailto:su...@suzanreed.com>>:
How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the 
beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.

Just a suggestion!

Suzan


On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
<cliff...@snowandsnow.us<mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote:


On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
<jwhelan0...@gmail.com<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they 
weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same mapper 
also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the same as a 
building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in JOSM to draw such 
a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone wit

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
the validators.

Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?

Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:

> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>
> Jo
>
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>
>> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
>> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
>> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
>> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
>> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
>> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
>> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
>> thankless and tedious task.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Suzan
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>>
>> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
>> buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
>> buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
>> part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
>> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
>> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>>
>> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
>> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
>> shapes using this method.
>>
>> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>>
>> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
>> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
>> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
>> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>>
>> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
>> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
>> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
>> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
>> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
>> as a validator.
>>
>> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
>> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
>> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
>> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
>> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
>> power tool, but with iD instead.
>>
>> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
>> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
>> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
>> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
>> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
>> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
>> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>>
>> Just a suggestion!
>>
>> Suzan
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
>> wrote:
>> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
>> they weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
>> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
>> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
>> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
>> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
>>
>> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
>> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
>> do we get squared buildings?
>>
>> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of
>> the mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as
>> quickly as possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques,
>> such as squaring buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be
>> the lack of training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an
>> event and if so who organized it to give gentle 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Jo]

It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.

Jo

2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :

> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> thankless and tedious task.
>
> Cheers!
> Suzan
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>
> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings
> in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings
> of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a
> validation workflow and could even be automated.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you
> can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>
> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
> shapes using this method.
>
> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>
> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>
> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
> as a validator.
>
> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
> power tool, but with iD instead.
>
> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>
> Just a suggestion!
>
> Suzan
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they
> weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
>
> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
> do we get squared buildings?
>
> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of the
> mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as quickly
> as possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques, such as
> squaring buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be the
> lack of training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an
> event and if so who organized it to give gentle constructive feedback to
> the host. (Hopefully it wasn't one of ours)
>
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> 

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Suzan Reed]

JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD power 
user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once rather than one 
at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all of them and then 
trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing worked. Maybe the iD 
team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then square all their 
buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It would be quite useful. 
Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a thankless and tedious task. 

Cheers! 
Suzan 


On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:

I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings in 
JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings of 
course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a 
validation workflow and could even be automated.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you can 
start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at 15 
degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric shapes 
using this method.

One has to know the tool one is working with.

When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over and 
over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring the 
rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude tool 
easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all those 
buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q] hundreds of 
times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly unsquared buildings. 
Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to the user and validate the 
tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out as a validator.

I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to validate 
their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating screencasts and posting 
a link to it in the comment field. This was rather effective, but it still is 
rather time consuming and there are always new users coming in, which, for some 
reason, were not trained with JOSM the power tool, but with iD instead.

Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the 
advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful at 
getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to something 
new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also because I 
don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I moved on to 
other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).

Polyglot

2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the 
beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.

Just a suggestion!

Suzan


On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:


On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan  wrote:
Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they 
weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same mapper 
also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the same as a 
building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in JOSM to draw such 
a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM and the building_tool 
plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.

I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared 
buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how do we 
get squared buildings?

From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of the 
mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as quickly as 
possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques, such as squaring 
buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be the lack of 
training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an event and if so 
who organized it to give gentle constructive feedback to the host. (Hopefully 
it wasn't one of ours)

Clifford


--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Jo]

Performing a search for all buildings with 4 nodes, this might be an
acceptable solution. There might be other problems with those buildings,
but it would be relatively easy to perform the search once more and then
let all of the buildings pass the revue using the todo plugin.

I might make a screencast to demo this later today.

Polyglot

2016-04-14 8:01 GMT+02:00 Ralf Stephan :

> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings
> in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings
> of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a
> validation workflow and could even be automated.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
>
>> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
>> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>>
>> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
>> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
>> shapes using this method.
>>
>> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>>
>> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
>> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
>> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
>> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>>
>> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
>> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
>> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
>> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
>> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
>> as a validator.
>>
>> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
>> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
>> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
>> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
>> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
>> power tool, but with iD instead.
>>
>> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
>> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
>> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
>> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
>> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
>> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>
>>> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at
>>> the beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>>>
>>> Just a suggestion!
>>>
>>> Suzan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
>>> wrote:
>>> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
>>> they weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
>>> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
>>> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
>>> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
>>> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
>>>
>>> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
>>> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
>>> do we get squared buildings?
>>>
>>> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of
>>> the mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as
>>> quickly as possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques,
>>> such as squaring buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be
>>> the lack of training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an
>>> event and if so who organized it to give gentle constructive feedback to
>>> the host. (Hopefully it wasn't one of ours)
>>>
>>> Clifford
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> @osm_seattle
>>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
>>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>>> ___
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Ralf Stephan]

I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings
in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings
of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a
validation workflow and could even be automated.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:

> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you
> can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>
> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
> shapes using this method.
>
> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>
> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>
> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
> as a validator.
>
> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
> power tool, but with iD instead.
>
> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>
>> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
>> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>>
>> Just a suggestion!
>>
>> Suzan
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
>> wrote:
>> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
>> they weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
>> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
>> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
>> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
>> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
>>
>> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
>> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
>> do we get squared buildings?
>>
>> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of
>> the mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as
>> quickly as possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques,
>> such as squaring buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be
>> the lack of training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an
>> event and if so who organized it to give gentle constructive feedback to
>> the host. (Hopefully it wasn't one of ours)
>>
>> Clifford
>>
>>
>> --
>> @osm_seattle
>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>> ___
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>>
>> ___
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Jo]

If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you
can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
shapes using this method.

One has to know the tool one is working with.

When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
as a validator.

I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
power tool, but with iD instead.

Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).

Polyglot

2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :

> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>
> Just a suggestion!
>
> Suzan
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they
> weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
>
> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
> do we get squared buildings?
>
> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of the
> mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as quickly
> as possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques, such as
> squaring buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be the
> lack of training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an
> event and if so who organized it to give gentle constructive feedback to
> the host. (Hopefully it wasn't one of ours)
>
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Suzan Reed]

How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the 
beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me. 

Just a suggestion! 

Suzan 


On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:


On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan  wrote:
Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they 
weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same mapper 
also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the same as a 
building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in JOSM to draw such 
a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM and the building_tool 
plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.

I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared 
buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how do we 
get squared buildings?

From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of the 
mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as quickly as 
possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques, such as squaring 
buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be the lack of 
training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an event and if so 
who organized it to give gentle constructive feedback to the host. (Hopefully 
it wasn't one of ours)

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they
> weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
>
> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
> do we get squared buildings?
>

>From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of the
mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as quickly
as possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques, such as
squaring buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be the
lack of training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an
event and if so who organized it to give gentle constructive feedback to
the host. (Hopefully it wasn't one of ours)

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

I accept that buildings can be squared in iD.  I'm at the rear of the horse
if you like, I'm just looking at the results.  I try to stay away from
validating projects with buildings because it would appear that many of the
maperthon mappers are not squaring their buildings.

Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they
weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.

I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
do we get squared buildings?

Cheerio John

On 13 April 2016 at 19:42, Clifford Snow  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:09 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> If it absolutely essential fine but if not can we just accept some
>> slanting buildings when iD has been used?  and if they're really essential
>> can we set the mappers up with a decent tool such as JOSM and the building
>> tool plugin?
>
>
> John,
> You can square a building in iD. In my opinion it does a better job than
> JOSM. JOSM is limited to 90 degree angles, where iD can do 45 degree
> angles.
>
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:09 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> If it absolutely essential fine but if not can we just accept some
> slanting buildings when iD has been used?  and if they're really essential
> can we set the mappers up with a decent tool such as JOSM and the building
> tool plugin?


John,
You can square a building in iD. In my opinion it does a better job than
JOSM. JOSM is limited to 90 degree angles, where iD can do 45 degree
angles.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

[HOT] Squared buildings

[john whelan]

How essential are they?

They're fairly easy to square in JOSM with q or to drop in correctly with
the building_tool plug in but I'm seeing perhaps 30% of buildings not
squared on some projects and to be honest by the time I've inspected the
image and sorted it out I could have mapped the building from scratch with
JOSM's building tool plugin.

If it absolutely essential fine but if not can we just accept some slanting
buildings when iD has been used?  and if they're really essential can we
set the mappers up with a decent tool such as JOSM and the building tool
plugin?

There is a temptation when validating to select buildings with nodes less
than 7 then just hit q.  You lose a bit of accuracy on the imagery but you
do get square buildings of approximately the right size in the right
place.  Would that be considered an acceptable method of working?

I seem to recall recently someone mentioning a bootable USB stick than had
a version of UNIX and JAVA and JOSM on it.  Could we mass produce these for
Building maperthons?

Thanks John
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot