[HOT] Tech WG - tasking manager - workflow branch
pierzenh at yahoo.fr
Tue Feb 4 22:47:23 UTC 2014
Yes, if Validation was to be kept, the Invalidation step is essential to avoid uncontrolled situations were incompleted jobs are validated.
We are discussing about implementing rapidly this version. But one functionality that would be important to add in this Version 1 is to allow people to look at the Task Manager job without providing an OSM Acccount, like it is now done in the future Version 2.
To advocate about OSM Activations and usefulnes of the Task Manager, we generally provide the link to the Task Manager or to a specific job. It would be important, then, that outsiders can see the descriptions without being requested to provide an OSM account.
This Task Manager is invaluable, with more then 280 jobs in 2013, for various mapping projects, support to local communities, humanitarian NGO's and for major Activations. This gives us the opportunity to work more closely with groups such as Red Cross and MSF and progress in a better response to the various humanitarian NGO's mapping needs. It also showed the capacity to escalate our response with the Philippines Typhoon in nov.2013.
A lot of improvements have been made over the year. Thanks to Pierre Giraud that responded to our requests in context of Activations, helping to adapt the TM to various situtations.
If we want to accelerate the development of the Task Manager and integrate other functionalities, including better monitoring for the coordinators, we should look in 2014 with our partners at ways to fund the development of the Task Manager.
De : "Banick, Robert" <Robert.Banick at redcross.org>
À : Mark Cupitt <markcupitt at gmail.com>; Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>
Cc : HOT Openstreetmap <hot at openstreetmap.org>
Envoyé le : Mardi 4 février 2014 14h35
Objet : Re: [HOT] Tech WG - tasking manager - workflow branch
I strongly agree. Validation is very useful, just not 100% well implemented in its current form. "Invalidation" would be an important step, as would tighter guidance on the validation process. Since it's supposed to be a decision taken with authority, it makes sense to have the definition of valid be less of a free for all and generally better defined.
Robert Banick | Field GIS Coordinator | International Services | Ì American Red Cross
2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
Tel 202-303-5017 | Cell 202-805-3679 | Skype robert.banick
From: Mark Cupitt <markcupitt at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:21 AM
To: "kate at maploser.com" <kate at maploser.com>
Cc: "hot at openstreetmap.org" <hot at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [HOT] Tech WG - tasking manager - workflow branch
As a newbie on HOT, I think that validation has a place. When a responder looks at a mapped set of areas it is useful to know if the data has been checked or not. It may influence how the data is utilized and evaluated especially for those who base operational decisions on the mapped data.
The more experienced mappers, perhaps the Voting Members could have the facility to Unvalidate a block if they look at it, or perhaps people could flag a validated block for a review by a more experienced mapper if they see issues, these flagged blocks could be shown visually.as a different color square so that an overall feel for the current status and confidence level by experienced HOT members on the data mapped could be assessed quickly.
Just a thought
"If we change the world, let it bear the mark of our intelligence"
See me on LinkedIn
See me on StackExchange
The contents of this email are intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, distribute,
or use the contents of this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete the email and any attachments.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com> wrote:
>On the other side of "for validation" it is a well liked feature for
>some of our more traditional partners. (Including those that
>originally funded v2 of the tasking manager)
>It would be nice not to take features away from the 1st version. I
>would suggest we look at ways to encourage validation. I think one way
>for example would be to let people validate more than one square at a
>On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Pierre GIRAUD <pierre.giraud at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey Harry!
>> You read my mind.
>> Let's try without validation.
>> I'm pretty sure that the validation feature can be re-added in a near
>> future. We just need to find a way to have something easy to understand for
>> the end user. And I am convinced that if it's simple for the end-user it
>> will not require to much effort to implement.
>> For the most motivated of us, I think that UI mockups are a neat way to
>> brainstorm and share ideas.
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Harry Wood <mail at harrywood.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Seems people aren't sure about the idea of removing the validation step,
>>> but I think it's good idea. I'm sure Pierre is suggesting this change having
>>> looked quite carefully at the way people are using the task manager system.
>>> The idea of validation was to allow pro-mappers to coordinate the process
>>> of double-checking over the area of a whole job, without too much
>>> duplication of that double-checking effort, but how many whole jobs has this
>>> happened on? It's easy to see the validation step has not been adopted much.
>>> Either we don't have many pro-mappers with confidence to validate, or
>>> they're not that interested in doing validation (perhaps because we have a
>>> steady flow of new jobs work on)
>>> And the thing which is always easy to overlook, the feature comes at a
>>> cost. It makes the system that little bit more complex to understand.
>>> I like the idea of trying without validation. A compromise might be to
>>> have it as some sort of hidden feature, but then that's effort to develop
>>> something which few users see.
>>> From: Pierre GIRAUD <pierre.giraud at gmail.com>
>>> To: HOT Openstreetmap <hot at openstreetmap.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, 2 February 2014, 18:46
>>> Subject: [HOT] Tech WG - tasking manager - workflow branch
>>> Hi all,
>>> It's been a while now that I've started working on a "workflow" branch
>>> (more than a year ago). The main purpose of this development was to improve
>>> the user experience by simplifying the interface a bit.
>>> This branch is the one used for the instance working at
>>> I'm now confident and I think that it's ready. I would now like to merge
>>> the work into the master branch and update the main instance. It will also
>>> eventually allow us to remove this second instance. I will do my best to
>>> retrieve the data as well.
>>> For those who don't know yet, in addition to user interface modification,
>>> the main enhancement is deep linking ie. links to tasks in a read only mode.
>>> This allow users to share a link to the task they are working on for
>>> I also got rid of the "validation" process because it has been the source
>>> of problems recently. Let's rethink this feature if we really need it.
>>> People still can invalidate tasks though.
>>> If no one is fiercely against i, I'll do the merge later this week.
>>> This will help me give an answer to Mikel and others who were asking me
>>> how much work is left to get v1 functionnalities in v2.
>>> | Pierre GIRAUD
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>> | Pierre GIRAUD
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>HOT mailing list
>HOT at openstreetmap.org
HOT mailing list
HOT at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT