I'd like to say a few words on the home page and editor. 1. Home Page: while I think Steve's proposal addresses some of the criticisms of the way the home page functions, I don't think it takes a holistic view of the project. What someone coming to it will initially see is essentially a "me too" for Google maps: it offers a service not a project.
I do think it is essential to have _a_ map on the home page, but I don't think it need take up the whole page. It need only be a representative map, and for the first time visitor well zoomed out area, so detail is low and it doesn't need to be that big. Once someone searches, clicks on the map, drags, presses the relevant button or whatever, we could go to a page like Steve's where you can also get search results and other direct services like export. But I think on the home page we would do better to have a smaller map and more information visible without clicking tabs links or buttons - a (brief) introduction to the project and link to more, - how to get involved + link, - especially links to all the services, products, projects and innovative ways people have based things around the project that aren't hosted on the site as well as those that are, - contact info for who can help provide services based around OSM (or at least an indication that there are such people and a link to where you can find out about them), - and space for a prominent "Report a problem" button. At the moment, Mapnik rendering *is* OpenStreetMap as far as the casual visitor is concerned, and I'd rather see that dominance reduced (not taken away, as it is a really good showcase for the outcome of the project, but it is only one), not emphasised even more. 2. Editor: Potlatch (and JOSM) address a different market from a feedback system, OpenStreetBugs or whatever. The latter only works if there is enough context on the map to make an observation about the content. If you're starting on virgin territory, that's not nearly enough. There's a place for both kinds and both kinds need to be improved. I find it hard to envisage a system for near-virgin territory editing which doesn't need at least some of the kind of graphics manipulation you need in products like Adobe Illustrator; but that's far too hard for someone who just notices an error in a well mapped area, so an alternative "point and say" type interface is definitely needed for these people. Off the main stage, I think it would be helpful for those who are acting on the information such a system provides to have a means of seeing and tracking it, which can be more complex than the reporting UI. OpenStreetBugs corrections in my area seem to fall into three categories: 1. "my street/village is not there" which is usually not helpful as it hasn't been surveyed yet, 2. incorrect changes: someone goes down a street every day and thinks the map is wrong. But they haven't actually gone and looked for the purpose, or they don't understand the signs, 3. helpful, valuable corrections. Sometimes 2 and 3 are hard to distinguish and need a visit. If someone new does make a change in my area, I usually make a point of checking it if I'm doubtful about it - and many times it does turn out it was my error, but very often not: the original survey was looking in detail and that often beats someone's casual memory. But then OSB is a rarely used tool as no one really knows it is there. I also think a feedback system needs at least the option of someone providing a contact or for them to receive info back - either a thank you, we've corrected the problem (so they get a nice fuizzy feeling of contribution) and/or a question to clarify their contribution (which I've needed more often than not for OSB contributions but have no way to do for anonymous entries, which is most because that's the default). Formal registration is way OTT though. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
