On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:30:06 -0500 john whelan <[email protected]> wrote: > > In HOT in theory new users work is validated. > In practise its only when a tile is completed > and even then most tiles aren't checked.
Thank you... I'm sincerly glad you recognize this issue in HOT contributions: from my window (mostly Senegal and a bit of Mali) I have a rather dim view of data quality in changesets with a HOT hashtag. I don't take that upon novice contributors, in part because I don't want to kill their enthusiasm and in part because they don't know what they are doing - so I feel that increased emphasis on data quality would be a most responsible course of action for HOT. From what I have witnessed, there seems to be a quantitative emphasis in reporting about HOT projects (kilometers of roads, number of buildings). While that makes for impressive presentations, it may be a misleading metric: the usefulness of data may have more to do with its quality rather than its quantity. Coming from an enterprise background, I know the difficulty of weaning oneself from the addictiveness of spectacular metrics, but I also know how much they hurt the bottom line. I have made quality assurance and the use of quality assurance tools such as http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr or the JOSM validator a core part of my message to budding advanced contributors - but of course such intimidating tools cannot be pushed to novice contributors. Nevertheless, there is no reason to restrict quality assurance from those who need it most, though it might require changes in both tools and processes. For example, might the validation status of a Tasking Manager tile be tied to the number of errors in it ? That would require integration of something like Osmose to the Tasking Manager, with a short validation delay unlike the daily batch basis of typical Osmose operation... But that is the sort of change that would make quality assurance a first-class citizen of HOT contributions. Also I wonder if, sometimes, it would be wiser to refrain from collecting data that will certainly have very low quality and questionable usefulness - buildings come to mind and I feel that using polygons with landuse tags would often be more cost-effective than them. In any case, and not just about HOT, I welcome a debate on how to embed quality assurance in the contribution process of the most novice contributors. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
