On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 17:16, Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > For example, > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2684418 a street library won't be > visible on aerial imagery, you either need to confirm on the ground or use > street level imagery. If it's unable to be verified remotely best to leave > it open for someone on the ground to verify it. > > I'm not exactly sure why this particular mapper works this way. So far > this year we have closed 503 of their notes. About 300 of them > resulted in some sort of edit to the map and another ~120 of them had > already been mapped. The other 80 are a mixture of out of date > information, comments about things that were no longer on the map, > wanting to add things that are temporary, information that was wrong, > and things that could not be confirmed. Overall we have managed to > deal successfully with 85% of their material. > > Now as you have pointed out this is an active mapper and given the > nature of the notes they have created they are in effect outsourcing > their mapping to others. So far this year they will have received 500+ > emails from the OSM system which means they will be well aware that > people have been processing their notes. If they think that some of > their notes have been incorrectly handled they are welcome to do their > own mapping or at least reactivate them. > > I have also encountered at least another two mappers who seem to have > adopted the same method of operations, opening many notes but not > actually dealing with them. > I get it, they add a lot of notes, but from what I've seen mostly they are helpful. If someone wants to add notes with the lane count and turn lanes of every intersection but not actually follow through and edit, that's fine. We should be encouraging, not discouraging it. They probably just want to help OSM but might feel too overwhelmed to edit or maybe only have the time to add the note and not edit the map. > > > > > Though I realise it's not always easy and at some point it makes sense > to close the note as unactionable. > > This is where the problem lies. The map note system is a terrible > issues management system. All we have to play with for filtering and > managing these is location and a binary status (open/closed). So the > more notes hanging around the harder it is to manage them. You only > need to look at the note stats for Germany or the USA to see what > happens once they start to build up. Sure it would be nice to add tags to issues to say, "needs survey", some people are using hashtags like #surveyme for this. > So it comes down to the question > of what is the point of keeping: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2440403 > > or > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2079710 > > open? They are just noise that is hiding the signal. If we had some > system of managing them then you could leave them all open, but at > present there isn't even an easy way of finding your own notes that > are still open. > Sure some are worth closing if they are indecipherable or not something that can be mapped, I'm just trying to point out that while it's commendable that people are trying to close notes (really this is great), our goal should not be to close all notes from the armchair and it's okay to leave those open that need further ground truthing. > > > > StreetComplete asks about open notes. > > Based on the default settings it only asks about notes that are posed > as questions. > Correct, and some people change their settings to see all notes. I think OSMAnd has an option to show notes and probably other apps too.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
