One concern I have at present is the lack of comments from what I would
call more average mappers in smaller population areas.

The conversation seems to be limited to two or three players.

I'm not sure if this is because we lost momentum earlier or people now feel
they have to have made more than a hundred edits to get involved.

We know the major cities have something worked out or are working on it.

My concern is more those locations with a smaller population and fewer
mappers who may not follow this list.

Cheerio John

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 1:05 PM James, <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to let you know there is a maximum of geometry the tasking manager
> can handle, I'm not exactly sure what it is, but I have encountered it
> before. So try not to go too ham with the geometric shapes
>
> On Wed., Jan. 15, 2020, 12:56 p.m. Daniel @jfd553, <jfd...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the quick replies!
>>
>> Now, about...
>>
>> *a) Data hosting:*
>>
>> Thank you James, I really appreciate your offer (and that of others). So
>> yes, I think hosting pre-processed data in the task manager, for approved
>> regions, is an attractive offer. When we agree on a municipality for
>> pre-processing, I will contact you to make the data available.
>>
>> BTW, I thought ODB data in OSM format was hosted with the OSMCanada task
>> manager. I understand that ODB data are currently converted on the fly when
>> requested?
>>
>> *b) Task manager work units for import:*
>>
>> I agree with Nate, ~ 200 buildings or ~ 1,500 nodes would be suitable. I
>> was thinking at the same importation rate, but for an hour of work. It
>> seems best to target 20-minute tasks.
>>
>> *c) Task manager work units for checking already imported data*
>>
>> According to Nate, it is definitely not faster than actively importing.
>> We should then keep the above setup (b).
>>
>> However, what if I add a new tag to pre-processed data indicating if a
>> building was altered or not by the orthogonalization (and simplification)
>> process? For instance, *building:altered=no*, would identify buildings
>> that were not changed by the process and that could be left unchanged in
>> OSM (i.e. not imported); *building:altered=yes* for those who were
>> changed by the process and that should be imported again. The same
>> pre-processed datasets could then be made available for all cases. Thoughts?
>>
>> *d) Finding local mappers:*
>>
>> I agree with Nate’s suggestion to try contacting the top 10 mappers in an
>> area. Using the "main activity center" would work for most of the
>> contributors but selecting other overlays (.e.g. an activity center over
>> last 6 months) could also work great. As long as we identify who might be
>> interested in knowing there is an import coming.
>>
>> Comments are welcome, particularly about the proposal on c)
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Reply via email to