I'm all for this, so long as it really is just for validation. I believe
we can leave notes on tasks via the tasking manager (?), which might be
a good way to catalogue any localized issues we see.
Nate Wessel
Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning
NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
On 1/26/19 2:16 PM, john whelan wrote:
Perhaps a way forward at the moment would be to open the task manager
up so the tiles imported so far can be validated.
Having lived with computers for many years I'm in total agreement,
they work very quickly but have no common sense what so ever.
Cheerio John
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 1:56 PM Nate Wessel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Getting a clear idea of what needs to be fixed is what validation
is all about. Having a second set of eyes look through everyone's
imported data in a systematic way will give us ideas for what we
need to fix moving forward. It can't be just a matter of looking
at a bunch of automated validation script outputs and issuing a
checkmark. Machines can do that - us humans can do better, and
that's a big part of the beauty of OSM: the human element.
If I may be permitted a tangent, I was fairly troubled at the last
State of the Map US conference that the focus of attention seemed
to have turned to a surprising degree toward "what cool things can
machines do with data" from the focus I saw in earlier years,
which was much more "how can we get more people engaged?".
Machines don't make quality data - only consistent errors. I'm
glad the big tech companies were buying us all beers (there was
soooo much free beer...) but we shouldn't adopt their narrow focus
on labor efficiency and automation. I don't think efficiency is
why we are all here.
...
I was going to address some of your other points, but I think my
little digression actually highlighted some of the differences in
the way we seem to be approaching all of these issues. I'm not a
fan of automation and efficiency at the cost of quality (in this
context), while that is a compromise you and others seem willing
to make. We may not be able to talk our way out of that difference
of opinion; the root of the issue is likely just a different
vision of OSM and why we each care about it.
Nate Wessel
Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban
Planning
NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
On 1/26/19 12:48 PM, Danny McDonald wrote:
1. In terms of validation, it would be helpful to have a clear
idea of what sorts of problems need to be fixed. I have
re-validated almost all of the areas I imported (and all of them
in Central Toronto), and fixed all of the building related
errors/warnings I found (with a few exceptions) there weren't
many errors, and many pre-dated the import. The only JOSM warning
I didn't fix is "Crossing building/residential area". Yaro's and
John's areas don't seem to have many errors either, although
there a few isolated "Crossing building/highway" warnings (and
some "building duplicated nodes" errors). I have also split big
retail buildings in dense areas.
2. I'm fine with simplification, I think we should just do it.
In terms of orthogonalization, I don't understand why
non-orthogonal buildings are a problem. If they are, JOSM allows
them to be auto-fixed.
3. I agree that the task manager squares are too big in central
Toronto. A separate task can be created for central Toronto
only, with smaller squares. I think the square size is fine
outside of Toronto, as long as the squares are split appropriately.
4. In terms of conflation, I agree that deleting and re-adding
buildings is not desirable, but I don't agree that that means it
should never be done, no matter the time cost. The ideal
solution here is some sort of script/plugin that auto-merges new
and recently added buildings - basically, an iterated "replace
geometry".
DannyMcD
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
