<div dir="auto">There is also fours states to a task..clear..no action, yellow...completed and green: validated! (there's also unvalidated to flag a tile as not being done again/not being validated) You can leave comments as well! </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat., Jan. 26, 2019, 7:53 p.m. Nate Wessel <<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com">bike756@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I'm all for this, so long as it really is just for validation. I
believe we can leave notes on tasks via the tasking manager (?),
which might be a good way to catalogue any localized issues we
see.</p>
<div class="m_1573609842224770071moz-signature">Nate Wessel<br>
<span style="font-size:10px;color:#777">Jack of all trades, Master
of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning<br>
<a href="http://natewessel.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="m_1573609842224770071moz-cite-prefix">On 1/26/19 2:16 PM, john whelan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Perhaps a way forward at the moment would be to
open the task manager up so the tiles imported so far can be
validated.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Having lived with computers for many years I'm
in total agreement, they work very quickly but have no common
sense what so ever.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Cheerio John</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 1:56 PM Nate Wessel <<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">bike756@gmail.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Getting a clear idea of what needs to be fixed is what
validation is all about. Having a second set of eyes look
through everyone's imported data in a systematic way will
give us ideas for what we need to fix moving forward. It
can't be just a matter of looking at a bunch of automated
validation script outputs and issuing a checkmark.
Machines can do that - us humans can do better, and that's
a big part of the beauty of OSM: the human element. <br>
</p>
<p>If I may be permitted a tangent, I was fairly troubled at
the last State of the Map US conference that the focus of
attention seemed to have turned to a surprising degree
toward "what cool things can machines do with data" from
the focus I saw in earlier years, which was much more "how
can we get more people engaged?". Machines don't make
quality data - only consistent errors. I'm glad the big
tech companies were buying us all beers (there was soooo
much free beer...) but we shouldn't adopt their narrow
focus on labor efficiency and automation. I don't think
efficiency is why we are all here.</p>
<p>...<br>
</p>
<p>I was going to address some of your other points, but I
think my little digression actually highlighted some of
the differences in the way we seem to be approaching all
of these issues. I'm not a fan of automation and
efficiency at the cost of quality (in this context), while
that is a compromise you and others seem willing to make.
We may not be able to talk our way out of that difference
of opinion; the root of the issue is likely just a
different vision of OSM and why we each care about it. <br>
</p>
<div class="m_1573609842224770071m_-6305613092154300058moz-signature">Nate Wessel<br>
<span style="font-size:10px;color:#777">Jack of all
trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban
Planning<br>
<a href="http://natewessel.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="m_1573609842224770071m_-6305613092154300058moz-cite-prefix">On
1/26/19 12:48 PM, Danny McDonald wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">1. In terms of validation, it would be
helpful to have a clear idea of what sorts of problems
need to be fixed. I have re-validated almost all of
the areas I imported (and all of them in Central
Toronto), and fixed all of the building related
errors/warnings I found (with a few exceptions) there
weren't many errors, and many pre-dated the import.
The only JOSM warning I didn't fix is "Crossing
building/residential area". Yaro's and John's areas
don't seem to have many errors either, although there
a few isolated "Crossing building/highway" warnings
(and some "building duplicated nodes" errors). I have
also split big retail buildings in dense areas.
<div>2. I'm fine with simplification, I think we
should just do it. In terms of orthogonalization, I
don't understand why non-orthogonal buildings are a
problem. If they are, JOSM allows them to be
auto-fixed.<br>
<div>3. I agree that the task manager squares are
too big in central Toronto. A separate task can
be created for central Toronto only, with smaller
squares. I think the square size is fine outside
of Toronto, as long as the squares are split
appropriately.</div>
<div>4. In terms of conflation, I agree that
deleting and re-adding buildings is not desirable,
but I don't agree that that means it should never
be done, no matter the time cost. The ideal
solution here is some sort of script/plugin that
auto-merges new and recently added buildings -
basically, an iterated "replace geometry".</div>
</div>
<div>DannyMcD</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_1573609842224770071m_-6305613092154300058mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_1573609842224770071m_-6305613092154300058moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
<a class="m_1573609842224770071m_-6305613092154300058moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="m_1573609842224770071m_-6305613092154300058moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote></div>