<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>This could be a nice idea to consider a tile validated only if done by three different people, but from my experience on Activation and TM jobs, I fear this is not really realistic considering finding volunteers for validation has always be complicated. I cannot imagine if we would need now to find three for every TM job... I would suggest rather that the Validation uses the new functions the TM v2 will offer: </div>
<div>- Validation can be reverted</div><div>- we can highlight who has validated what by clicking in the validation list. If it has been done by a not very experienced mapper (what can be easily checked on his OSM profile), it would been good someone more experienced verifies it</div>
<div>- from what you suggest a new interesting possibility would to allow various people to validate, but I do not know if it could be implemented easily </div><div>- another possibility could be to use the existing Private options (=a TM Job can be used only by listed OSM mappers) for Validation</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:33:10 +0000<br>
From: Daniele Venzano <<a href="mailto:linux@brownhat.org">linux@brownhat.org</a>><br>
To: Theodin <<a href="mailto:theodin@posteo.de">theodin@posteo.de</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:hot@openstreetmap.org">hot@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [HOT] Tech WG - tasking manager - workflow branch<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20140209083310.GD28603@brownhat.eu">20140209083310.GD28603@brownhat.eu</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
I like this idea a lot. Having a validation system based on some kind<br>
of voting. I think it could work well.<br>
<br>
As Theodin says, we could have users that look at a tile and say "looks<br>
good to me". Once you have three of these, you mark the tile as<br>
validated.<br>
You can also have "special" users that can invalidate and/or validate in<br>
one click.<br>
<br>
There could be also a per-task configurable threshold. So for tasks<br>
with many users the task admin can put an higher number of votes to<br>
validate and have a better confidence in the data. Other tasks could<br>
have just one vote needed, reverting to how the system currently works.<br>
<br>
About invalidation: I am not so confident that a down-voting system<br>
could work. I would prefer that an experienced mapper has the ability to<br>
invalidate if he sees something wrong.<br>
Some experimentation could be needed.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Daniele<br>
<br>
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 09:13:23AM +0100, Theodin wrote:<br>
> Another idea:<br>
><br>
> Maybe we could dothe process like Kort (OSM gamification<br>
> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kort_Game" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kort_Game</a> ) does it. There, several people must check a certain<br>
> thing and after three sucessfull checks it gets accepted into OSM. That would be like a 2-step<br>
> validation:<br>
> first other mappers validate a tile 2-3 times<br>
> second an experienced mapper validates it again blocks it and marks it as done.<br>
><br>
> But maybe this process is too much work.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Theodin<br>
><br>
><br>
> Am 04.02.2014 00:38, schrieb Severin MENARD:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:46:50 -0800 (PST)<br>
> > From: Mikel Maron <<a href="mailto:mikel_maron@yahoo.com">mikel_maron@yahoo.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mikel_maron@yahoo.com">mikel_maron@yahoo.com</a>>><br>
> > To: Pierre GIRAUD <<a href="mailto:pierre.giraud@gmail.com">pierre.giraud@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pierre.giraud@gmail.com">pierre.giraud@gmail.com</a>>>, HOT Openstreetmap<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:hot@openstreetmap.org">hot@openstreetmap.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hot@openstreetmap.org">hot@openstreetmap.org</a>>><br>
> > Subject: Re: [HOT] Tech WG - tasking manager - workflow branch<br>
> > Message-ID:<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:1391435210.32961.YahooMailNeo@web161701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com">1391435210.32961.YahooMailNeo@web161701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:1391435210.32961.YahooMailNeo@web161701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com">1391435210.32961.YahooMailNeo@web161701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com</a>>><br>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
> ><br>
> > Pierre<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks for the update, great to hear about the progress and new UI features.?<br>
> ><br>
> > So I'm clear, you're talking about<br>
> > merging?<a href="https://github.com/pgiraud/osm-tasking-manager/tree/workflow" target="_blank">https://github.com/pgiraud/osm-tasking-manager/tree/workflow</a><br>
> > into?<a href="https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager" target="_blank">https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager</a><br>
> > <<a href="https://github.com/pgiraud/osm-tasking-manager/tree/workflowinto?https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager" target="_blank">https://github.com/pgiraud/osm-tasking-manager/tree/workflowinto?https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager</a>><br>
> > ?<br>
> ><br>
> > And by v2, are we talking about this version?<br>
> > <a href="https://github.com/pgiraud/osm-tasking-manager2" target="_blank">https://github.com/pgiraud/osm-tasking-manager2</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On validation, I agree it needs a rethink. There is definitely a need for validation in some<br>
> > form. But I'd hesitate to remove functionality, the current validation without replacing it<br>
> > with something else. I suggest we keep it for now, and move on discussion of what this should<br>
> > really look like.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > From my experience over the last months I would say the validation is two-folds:<br>
> > - by task to review what each contributor did. The green step would be good ONLY IF IT COULD BE<br>
> > INVALIDATED. Currently once validated, it cannot be revert and the task cannot be selected<br>
> > anymore. This is really a pain as some mappers validate tasks that are far for being done. I must<br>
> > also confess I validated one or two tasks by accident myself. Is it not possible to easily remove<br>
> > this blocking feature and make the validation reverted if needed?<br>
> > - over the whole mapped area, to harmonize the mapping and set a coherent road network. For more<br>
> > details, refer to the discussion I had on this list with Nick Allen a few weeks ago. Create a<br>
> > wikipage on this is still on my todo list.<br>
> ><br>
> > Sincerely,<br>
> ><br>
> > Severin<br></blockquote></div></div></div>