<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">>I would have to run a query now to find out if the relative number of active mappers is higher in one country than the other, but that's not my point.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">But how do you determine where a mapper lives and don't forget many armchair mappers map in a different location to where they live.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">JOSM and the building_tool plugin worked very well for our lot. We did ask them to come with JAVA installed and we only taught them enough JOSM to map a building with the plugin. Well we showed them a few more things as they got more comfortable with it.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Cheerio John<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 23 November 2017 at 10:26, Tim Elrick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:osm@elrick.de" target="_blank">osm@elrick.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi John,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your feedback and background information.<br>
<br>
I think, we are on the same page. I am concerned with quality too, while<br>
mapping should remain enjoyable.<br>
<br>
We shied away from JOSM for newbies because it seemed more technical to<br>
my groups members. I personally like JOSM better, and the building<br>
plug-in is great. Maybe I manage to convince the group to use it next time.<br>
<br>
I did not intend to call for experienced mappers to do all the<br>
validation (I know it is tedious; however, correcting and esp. updating<br>
makes OSM great and in some place much better than the official<br>
sources). I think, that the group who initiated the mapping should<br>
'clean up after themselves' (and I just wanted to affirm that we will do<br>
that). I just wanted to express gratitude to mappers how do help out.<br>
<br>
Once I am more into it, I am happy to help out validating other's work.<br>
<br>
I did not mean to cheery pick when I quoted the validation website (I<br>
very much appreciate the wiki page). I just wanted to make a point about<br>
timing.<br>
<br>
Regarding Canada, as a geographer I am fully aware of the fact Canada<br>
having relatively less population, however, it has still almost half of<br>
the population of Germany and the urban areas, which most of OSM mappers<br>
are concerned with, might be relatively (to population) similar in size<br>
(that's just a guess). I would have to run a query now to find out if<br>
the relative number of active mappers is higher in one country than the<br>
other, but that's not my point. The relative numbers do not matter, as<br>
actual people do the mapping. And there, I hope we agree, the Canadian<br>
OSM community could do with more active mappers.<br>
<br>
Tim<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Am 23.11.2017 um 07:54 schrieb john whelan:<br>
The issue is the quality of the mapping, nothing else. I attended one of<br>
these geoweek events and we used JOSM with the building_tool plugin. <br>
The mapping of buildings was accurate even though 75% of the mappers had<br>
never used JOSM before. There was no formal validation done but I<br>
verified each mappers work as they did it. I got the impression that<br>
the mappers enjoyed the exercise and I think for me that was the most<br>
important thing. Mapping should be fun.<br>
<br>
There was no mention of the work would be validated nor did we record<br>
the mappers userids to ensure which mappers had mapped. Other mappers<br>
had marked tiles done on the grid.<br>
<br>
I was under the impression that Stats Canada was involved but was later<br>
assured by them that this was not the case.<br>
<br>
The problem of lots of new mappers producing low quality work really<br>
reared its head during the Nepal crisis. I do mainly validation on HOT<br>
projects in Africa and I ended up pulling in chunks of Africa and just<br>
trying to clean up the map. Currently I'm looking at one mapper who has<br>
added more than a thousand ways with one tag I think it says<br>
source=PGS. Data quality is a major issue in OpenStreetMap. Recently<br>
someone gave up when looking for area=yes or buildings drawn in iD but<br>
left untagged for the most part. I think in Europe it was 100,000 or<br>
more worldwide it was far higher and that's when the person looking at<br>
it gave up.<br>
<br>
There are many examples in Africa of groups of buildings being mapped as<br>
one building and labelled building=house. That's what we are trying to<br>
avoid. It is possible to correctly map a building in iD I've seen it<br>
done but it takes time. It is far easier to sort of roughly get it<br>
right and roughly means not accurately. I think the thing we need to<br>
avoid is a feeling the mapper needs to get a tile done. That's when they<br>
start to rush things.<br>
<br>
Building validation? I can think of no validator who enjoys having to<br>
take two or three times longer to correct someones's work than it would<br>
take them to map it in JOSM with the building_tool in the first place. <br>
I'm unable to even think of a case where a project has been validated<br>
and the buildings corrected. When I validate I'm trying to correct the<br>
mapper's work and give them feedback so they will map more accurately in<br>
future. There is no point in doing this to someone who will map once. <br>
It's a waste of my time.<br>
<br>
The wiki page you pointed to, I wrote much of it. the most important<br>
part which you skipped is feedback from a user. <br>
<br>
<br>
Why do we validate?<br>
<br>
“OpenStreetMap is often the only source of maps, but the data quality is<br>
very uneven. I wish they’d put their more experienced mappers onto<br>
validation.” This is a quote from an individual who used OpenStreetMap<br>
data (HOT) in the field.<br>
<br>
Note the comment the data quality is very uneven and that's what we are<br>
trying to address. Your particular maperthon may have produced good<br>
work, my lot certainly did but many mappers using the tag did not and<br>
that is the issue.<br>
<br>
By the way we do have fewer mappers per square kilometre than Germany<br>
does and we have used CANVEC data to get a basic road network in. In<br>
Ottawa we've used Open Data to bring in the bus stops. The basic<br>
Canadian map isn't bad but if we had as many mappers per square<br>
kilometre as Germany does then no doubt it would be better. Our<br>
population density is also lower by the way if you hadn't noticed.<br>
<br>
Cheerio John<br>
<br>
On 22 November 2017 at 21:28, Tim Elrick <<a href="mailto:osm@elrick.de">osm@elrick.de</a><br>
</div></div><div><div class="h5"><mailto:<a href="mailto:osm@elrick.de">osm@elrick.de</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hello all,<br>
<br>
As you know Open Mapping Group McGill (OMG McGill) organized one of the<br>
mapathons last week for the town of Williams Lake, BC. For the turnout<br>
please turn to Julia's website published earlier today on the list.<br>
<br>
As a mentor of the group I might be the 'director' of this event<br>
according to the proposed policy by the OSMF board. In this role, I want<br>
to assure you that we tried to do our best to teach new mappers how to<br>
do their job properly, as Charles stated on this list yesterday. And<br>
judging from a preliminary analysis of the data I conducted with the<br>
overpass api, the participants did a pretty good job.<br>
<br>
Of course, the data needs validation, which we will conduct in the next<br>
couple of days. However, I do not see the rush proposed on this list<br>
earlier. Ideally, validation would happen right after the mapping event<br>
(as set out in this manual for HOT tasks [1]). In the real world, we all<br>
have our jobs, families and other voluntary engagements, that sometimes<br>
do not allow to act accordingly. I further think it is not even<br>
necessary for tasks that are not related to immediate disaster response<br>
or include ways tagged with a highway tag (in the later case it might<br>
confuse navigation apps if not validated right away). In many cases,<br>
validation, or better, correction of data entered by individual mappers<br>
(not part of group events) was (and still is) done many days or even<br>
months after the data was entered, depending on whether an experienced<br>
mapper has an eye on a certain region or not. With regards to buildings<br>
in areas where there existed no respective data before, I do not see any<br>
need for rushing.<br>
<br>
The important thing is that the organiser of a group event makes sure<br>
that the data entered by participants of the event *is* validated to<br>
ensure data quality. And we will. To this end, I appreciate that<br>
long-term members already offered to help us there (thank you,<br>
Charles!).<br>
<br>
I still consider mapathons a legitimate way to draw attention to OSM, to<br>
advocate for open data, and to show the potential of OSM data and the<br>
lack thereof in many parts of the world, including Canada. From the<br>
experience of our first mapathon I got the impression that we instigated<br>
a vast interest in open mapping (which, I think, is a valid goal on its<br>
own right) and I expect quite a couple of returning participants to our<br>
next events, in which we will train them further on the complexities to<br>
produce good OSM data. By continuing, we might be able to motivate one<br>
or two persons to turn into long-term mappers; this is, by the way,<br>
totally in line with the long-tail phenomenon researchers found in all<br>
crowd-sourcing projects.<br>
All those reasons I mentionend, are, I think, worth it continuing doing<br>
what we did. I would appreciate, if the attitude towards group mapping<br>
events were less hostile on this list and on OSM as such (I am aware of<br>
less fortunate attempts conducting group mapping events recently; but<br>
try not blame them, but give them a hand to do it better next time - and<br>
I know you did, but some of them apparently did not understand how<br>
communication works in OSM). Try to give them the benefit of the doubt:<br>
most mappers, even in group event, do this voluntarily and because they<br>
want to enjoy extend this great geodatabase!<br>
<br>
IMHO, OSM cannot do without those events, because we do not want to<br>
leave the future of OSM only to businesses and their paid mappers (and<br>
we have seen that in some countries, including Canada, there might not<br>
be enough people who find their way to OSM without those events).<br>
<br>
Tim<br>
<br>
<br>
[1]<br>
<br>
<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/Validating_data#When_do_we_validate.3F" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/<wbr>Validating_data#When_do_we_<wbr>validate.3F</a><br>
<br>
<<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/Validating_data#When_do_we_validate.3F" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/<wbr>Validating_data#When_do_we_<wbr>validate.3F</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
</div></div> <a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.<wbr>org</a>><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
<<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-ca</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>