<div dir="ltr">Do people leave helpful comments when validating tasks?<br><br>I lead Missing Maps sessions where I'm often the only "experienced" OSMer. I do tend to include squaring/circling buildings in my demo steps, and I just bought a few cheap USB mice o have those available<div><br></div><div>More importantly, after the event I try to review at least one task per user at the event. If I invalidate that task, I will try and find another of theirs that I can validate. I'm told invalidating a task sends a message (with the comment contents) to the user. Validating a task will send a message to the user if I use @ and include their username. For tasks that would be invalid, I either make sure I mention what I fixed or I invalidate it (even if it would be quick to fix) to give the mapper a chance to see & fix what they did wrong/missed.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm not great at reviewing, because often I find it hard to have the time and I don't find the tools fast for finding/reviewing tasks of new users. Not all users manage to use our event hashtag in the change comment.</div><div><br></div><div>I know it's not practical to leave a message on every task reviewed, but maybe reviewers could aim to comment on ~5 tasks per reviewing session (or 10 per 100 they review, etc).<br>I appreciate those who do a lot of viewing. 100% green looks better than 100% orange.<br><br>From Newcastle,</div><div>Gregory (LivingWithDragons)</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 April 2016 at 23:30, Jo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com" target="_blank">winfixit@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">And Jo hasn't been validating all that much building related tasks lately. He only started again about a day ago, due to a Mapathon happening nearby to him...<div><br></div><div>Jo got distracted validating schools in Uganda and doing interesting stuff with Python to add those to Wikidata as well. Or creating spreadsheet formulas to help others add stuff caught in spreadsheets.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, so even Jo gets tired of squaring the lot of them.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't know if it's superimportant to make them rectangular. When I do validate buildings, I like them to be squared because, indeed, I think trapezoid shaped buildings look ugly when rendered. If they would be trapezoid shaped in reality, this would probably not bother me though.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Jo</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-04-17 23:19 GMT+02:00 john whelan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jwhelan0112@gmail.com" target="_blank">jwhelan0112@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Just to recap the problems, we start with iD not displaying the buildings in the tile, whether this is because the time has lapsed and a second mapper has started on the tile or iD not showing all the detail I'm not concerned with the reason simply the fact that to me its not reliable.<br><br>Then we have mappers not using mice and not zooming in.<br><br>Huts seem routinely to be one mapped correctly then all the next ones people come across are cut and paste of the first. This means the size of many is incorrect.<br><br>We have an expectation that if we look at the area of the building we can estimate the population.<br><br>So we end up with a lot of approximately mapped buildings which we then ask people to square. When we square we are approximating again which means the accuracy for building area goes down even further.<br><br>Whilst Jo is happy to carefully inspect each building after squaring I probably don’t have the patience when faced with a large number and I suspect a fair number of validators feel the same. Especially when its faster to go in delete the lot and remap with JOSM building_tool plugin.<br><br>I think we can assume that a four sided building will have four sides when mapped.<br><br>I personally think that a squared building looks better but from a functional point of view we know there is a building there, the aid workers have a map which shows them the location and if the four sides aren't perfectly square they will still be able to recognise it.<br><br>My personal view is for four sided buildings some sort of image recognition software as the first pass followed by validation would give us much better accuracy and probably be faster.<br><br>My second choice would be to use something like the building_tool plugin for JOSM. It would give us much better accuracy and people might even manage to get the building lined up with the four corners of the image.<br><br>We could of course clone Jo but that might be difficult.<br><br>Cheerio John</div><br></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 April 2016 at 14:40, Jo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com" target="_blank">winfixit@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi John,<div><br></div><div>I'm validating tasks with many buildings in it and even though we stressed on it for the Mapathon, I still find quite a few of them not being made rectangular.</div><div><br></div><div>So I started using this search to find all the buildings with 4 nodes:</div><div><br></div><div>building inview nodes:4<br></div><div>Square them all, then search like this:</div><div>building parent modified<br></div><div><br></div><div>So you can add all the buildings which have nodes that moved to the todo list. Then you can use ] quickly to review them and see if it still makes sense. use 'w' to move their nodes if needed, followed by 'q'. Then ']' again to move to the next one. This makes it relatively efficient without losing accuracy. It definitely beats ]q]q]q]q]q] :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Then search again using:</div><div><br></div><div>building inview nodes:5-<br></div><div><br></div><div>to review the ones with more nodes.</div><div><br></div><div>building inview nodes:-9</div><div><br></div><div>also works to exclude round buildings.<span><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Jo</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>2016-04-15 1:23 GMT+02:00 john whelan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jwhelan0112@gmail.com" target="_blank">jwhelan0112@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span>>2. Validation - either invalidate or fix. <div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></span><div class="gmail_extra"><span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;display:inline">></div>Step
1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own or the
turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be fixed
in the validation step.<br><br></span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">I think less well under half of the mapped tiles in HOT have been validated and of those that have I'd say another 20+% wouldn't meet my personal standards and 50+% wouldn't meet Jo's. I admit my personal validation standard is aimed more at making sure what is there is reasonably correct according to the project instructions.<br><br> So are you suggesting gold standard validation ie JOSM plugin todo list and each building is examined carefully before squaring? <br><br>Is some form of bulk squaring acceptable? On the grounds its better than nothing?<br><br>If the tiles get invalidated who do we expect to come back and fix them? Remember 99% of the "unoffical" maperthon mappers will never return.<br><br>In the case of projects that have many of these types of buildings which may not be attractive to validate should we just ignore the problem and hope one day someone will gold plate validate the project. It may even happen.<br><br>Remember that validation is voluntary and validators can choose which projects to validate on and which to just ignore.<br><br>I accept some of the big organised groups probably think they have
proper training on their organised maperthons and tame validators to map
their particular projects so for them the problem doesn't exist but think in terms of HOT generally, think in
terms of the maperthons that take place with no experienced mappers.
They exist.<br><br>I
understand it is not an easy question and there are very different view
points but I think we need to have the discussion and attempt to reach
some sort of consensus of how to get the most out of the limited resources we
have rather than have individual validators make their own pragmatic decisions. One of which is delete them all and remap, its faster.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Cheerio John<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br></div></div></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 April 2016 at 18:33, Clifford Snow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clifford@snowandsnow.us" target="_blank">clifford@snowandsnow.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><span><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jwhelan0112@gmail.com" target="_blank">jwhelan0112@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped buildings would be?</blockquote></div><br></span>1. Determine the cause(s) of the poorly mapped buildings. Do we need more helpers in MM mapathons? The last one I did, we had a number of new mappers. Those of us helping were stretched just answering questions. Not being able to spend time going over people work. And yes - we did teach squaring buildings. We also recommended people bring a mouse to the session. One of our team brought extra for people to use and I even lent mine out. Drawing features without a mouse is difficult. We've even suggested to Red Cross that they have a bag of mice to lend during MM events.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">2. Validation - either invalidate or fix. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own or the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be fixed in the validation step.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra">Clifford<span><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div>@osm_seattle<br></div><div><a href="http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us" target="_blank">osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us</a></div><div>OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch</div></div></div>
</span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br></div></div><span>_______________________________________________<br>
HOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">HOT@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
HOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org">HOT@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Gregory<br><a href="mailto:osm@livingwithdragons.com" target="_blank">osm@livingwithdragons.com</a><br><a href="http://www.livingwithdragons.com" target="_blank">http://www.livingwithdragons.com</a></div>
</div>