<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Augustin, while I can see the reasoning behind your proposal (and
have run an instance of the HOT tasking myself for many years,
possibly as one of the first to do so). I don't quite see the
qualitative improvement vs. independent instances if the OSMF
would run simply yet another one (note on the side: anybody is
free to use the instance at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tasks.osm.ch/">http://tasks.osm.ch/</a> ).<br>
</p>
<p>On the other hand having such functionality integrated (fsvo) in
the rails-port (the OSM website) directly at the "finger tips" of
and easily discoverable and shareable by OSM contributors could
make a substantial difference. <br>
</p>
<p>However such a project would be quite substantial (in more than
one aspect) and at least the EWG hasn't been very enthusiastic
about the idea the times I've proposed it. <br>
</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23.12.2018 13:00, Augustin Doury
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:69f1eb0d7127daa86a220893c76a4961@mykolab.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Disclaimer: english is not my native language, please don't
focus on specific vocabulary choices</p>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>Thanks for your different answers !</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Quick remind</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Firstly I would like to remind quickly the 4 reasons why I
think "OSMF should propose an independant and robust Tasking
Manager alternative to the OSM community".<br>
The detailed arguments are available in the first email of this
thread.</p>
<ol>
<li>Tasking Managers are used by thousands of mappers and
concern millions of edit, the software seems to be an
inescapable way of contribution for many mappers</li>
<li>propose a TM instance which is not necessarily linked to
Humanitarian stuff (but could be)</li>
<li>propose a TM instance which is stable and independant of the
Area of Interest</li>
<li>propose a TM instance where OSM contributors can contribute
independently of any official organisation</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li><strong>About the issue around technical skills to run an
instance</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>@Blake : thanks to propose your technical skills about TM
install, as you said "under the auspices of the OSMF and
appropriate Working Group". Happy to know that an OSMF TM
instance could make sense for you !</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>About the counter-argument "there are plenty of
examples out there for running a TM outside the HOT domain".</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks Steven and Ralph for your answers. Despite all this
instances, I'm still convinced of the initial proposition for an
OSMF TM.<br>
=> my initial email mentioned that : "<em>They are many
existing instances [<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager#Operational_installations_of_the_Tasking_Manager"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">link</a>], but most of them are
"country based", are not always up-to-date (the migration from
v2 to v3 is not easy), and do not necessarily offer a
"guarantee of service"</em>.</p>
<p>If needed, here are more details to illustrate that. <br>
20 TM instances are "declared" on the Wiki:</p>
<ul>
<li>9 instances are running TM version 3 while 8 are running TM
version 2</li>
<li>3 doesn't seem to work</li>
<li>15 are country-based</li>
<li>5 focus on humanitarian&development or environment or
historical map</li>
<li>0 propose an alternative which could be compatible with
arguments above (cf "Quick Remind" point) n°2, 3 and 4 in
favor of "OSMF should propose an independant and robust
Tasking Manager alternative to the OSM community". But it's
always possible to debate on arguments !</li>
</ul>
<p>I think it's interesting that there are at least 15
country-based TM (Canada, Colombie, Finlande, Portugal,
Indonesia etc.) which could be interpreted as a wish by
countries communities to have a local independent instance, and
also probably an instance where people can "get creation rights
(like software is not designed for anyone to create a project)
[...] within a short time" as Severin explained.<br>
IMO these observations are in favour of an OSMF independant and
up-to-date TM instance. As a matter of fact, a lot of mappers
from local communities can't have access to a country-based
local instance (because their country doesn't have one) and so
don't have any other choice than choose an instance focused on
thematics (hum/dev, environment etc.) and/or run by a specific
organization for which TM users are indeed considers as official
volunteers.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>About "TM technical limits and potential
resolution" raised by Severin</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks Severin to show your interest and to propose to
participate in this topic. You accent on some issues which could
not be ignored if OSMF decides to run a TM instance,
particularly (as I understood):</p>
<ul>
<li>multiple instance implies : how to ensure a minimum
coordination between them ? (ex : avoid to create two similar
projects on 2 different instances) <strong>>>></strong>
this problem already exists and would not be specific to an
OSMF TM instance.</li>
<li>how to maintain a "generic" fork of the TM Github main repo
? that should not be complicated if we just personalize main
text areas.</li>
<li>how to deal with the TM "project manager" status, given that
TM "is not designed for anyone to create a project" <strong>>>></strong>
IMO, the must challenging point to discuss further</li>
<li>how to deal with "organized edits" ? running an OSMF TM
would be an "an additional workload" for OSMF. We must think
about a "test period".</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>What's next ?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>With Blake and Severin it's like at least 3 people are
interested in working/help on this subject, maybe the begining
of a WG ?<br>
I think it could be so valuable to have:</p>
<ul>
<li>more inputs from people on this list</li>
<li>an idea of what could be the conditions to realize this
project "under the auspices of the OSMF and appropriate
Working Group"</li>
</ul>
<p>Have a good day !</p>
<p>Augustin Doury</p>
<p>PS : because my message was rejected by the list (too big),
I've deleted thread's older emails from below </p>
<p>-----</p>
<p>COPY/PAST from Severin email which is only readable outside the
mailbox and I'm not sure everybody got it >> Le 2018-12-21
22:57, Severin Menard a écrit :</p>
<p>(Original en français, automatic translation by Deepl with
slight corrections below) : <a
href="https://mail.protonmail.com/eo/message/jup9rQTLk_Fm56vD1vZoVILs1K-oN7h-B9BbEVMh6DKnJLjjrzTyVgmn5KfQGYHCJblrxMTIFPyuBZQdXIFoKg=="
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.protonmail.com/eo/message/jup9rQTLk_Fm56vD1vZoVILs1K-oN7h-B9BbEVMh6DKnJLjjrzTyVgmn5KfQGYHCJblrxMTIFPyuBZQdXIFoKg==</a></p>
<div>I think Augustin is totally aware of the existence of
different instances of the Tasking Manager (TM). In the past, he
has even administered a server hosting a TM
instance. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The creation of an OSMF instance of the Tasking Manager is an
idea to be explored, but it is important to be aware that it
will not de facto solve some of the concerns encountered in the
implementation and coordination of the various projects present
in the different TM
instances. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The main current limitation of the TM remains the lack of a
clear vision of the projects created. True, version 3 of the TM
includes a mapping in the form of punctuals categorized
according to their degree of priority, but this is not enough to
visualize the spatial extension of projects and only concerns
those specific to each instance. There is currently no software
development to recover the spatial extensions of each project
(which the TM has long produced in GeoJSON format) from the
various deployed instances of the TM (at least those known) in
the form of a geographical layer that would replace the silo
point mapping of version 3. It would show the spatial extensions
and also share some information: host authority, date of
creation, date of last contribution, % completeness, typology
(e.g. buildings only, detailed baseline data, road network,
residential areas, etc.) and a link to the project. This mash up
of existing inter-instance projects would be integrated into the
steps of creating a new project on each of the instances
integrating this new software development, which would allow any
creator to ensure that they do not duplicate an existing project
in any part, or at least to be aware of it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is a development that the Foundation could consider
funding in case the NGO HOT US Inc, which has carried out the
latest developments of the TM, does not wish to do so. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, it would not prevent the implementation of a TM
managed by the OSMF, if its members so wish. This body would de
facto represent the most generic a priori body of the TM, but I
do not believe that it would be more official than the existing
bodies and even less that it could become the only available TM,
because 1 basically a free service is more efficient when it is
replicated, 2 this would go in the opposite direction of the
decentralising will of the OSMF and 3 the groups or structures
that implement their own TM are committed to
it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my own experience as administrator of users of an instance
of the Tasking Manager, the problem for anyone who wants to be
able to create a project is not to find an instance, but to get
creation rights (like software is not designed for anyone to
create a project) and often within a short time. These OSM
contributors naturally go to the first instance they naturally
think of (that of HOT US Inc or on a national, regional,
thematic basis, etc.) and to a second instance if they could not
have creative rights in the first. It would then be up to the
OSMF to find a way to satisfy requests for additional fees in
its proceedings.</div>
<div>One solution could be that this instance could be open to any
OSM contributor without specific rights for the creation of new
projects, but this would also require a TM software development
which currently, unless I am mistaken, does not allow this.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This does not mean that the creation of a TM project via an
open instance is not without constraints. Since the TM involves
in the vast majority of its projects managed editions, for which
a guideline was recently defined by the DWG and approved in
November by the OSMF board, logically each project creator of
the OSMF instance will have to create a wiki page explaining the
modalities of the managed editions of the project. This instance
of the OSMF would also necessarily constitute an additional
workload for the DWG and therefore a possible brake. These
questions and constraints would probably require starting with a
time-limited test period followed by an evaluation. I would be
happy to participate in this topic. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Severin</div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>