[HOT] Tech WG - tasking manager - workflow branch

Mikel Maron mikel_maron at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 5 17:19:42 UTC 2014


Btw, just wanted to add, the OSMTM is really fun to code. It's a tribute to Pierre Giraud's good program design that it's easy to make contributions.

For instance, in response to some discussion, I just added support for imagery directly in the iD link on a task. https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager/pull/178. After this is merged, tested, and deployed, you won't need to manually add a tile layer in iD, it will be automatic.

Managing pull requests and all the various issues is a job in itself, and props to Pierre to keeping track of these too. I'm thinking, how can we better help him out with all the requests and project ideas for the OSM Tasking Manager? There's so much excitement for it, and it's something that could attract sponsors to support developer time. It's easy to learn the layout of the code, but not obvious what are the low hanging fruit, or highest priority developer tasks. We also want to get clarity on what it will take to move to v2, to focus future developer efforts.

We have issues in GitHub. https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager/issues?direction=asc&sort=created&state=open
One helpful step, I recommend, would be to group issues into a few Milestones, or Labels. One could be "Low Hanging Fruit", another "V2", and others grouped together according to function, like "Better Validation", "API", etc. These could then be fleshed out and presented to sponsors as fundable work plans. Other tasks could be presented at hackathons, like the upcoming Open Data Day.

-Mikel

 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron



On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:53 AM, Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com> wrote:
 
Another +1 to keeping validation right now, but continuing to improve it in the near future. It's expected by several partners and documented in several places, and removing it would create a lot of otherwise avoidable discussions.
> 
>* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:37 PM, "Banick, Robert" <Robert.Banick at redcross.org> wrote:
> 
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear All
>>
>>
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
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>
>>Mark 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>
>>Mark Cupitt
>>
>>
>>"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:
>>
>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>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
>>>time.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>-Kate
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> Pierre
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harry
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>> http://tasks2.hotosm.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> example.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Pierre
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>   | Pierre GIRAUD
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> HOT mailing list
>>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>   | Pierre GIRAUD
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> HOT mailing list
>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>HOT mailing list
>>>HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>HOT mailing list
>>HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>HOT mailing list
>HOT at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20140205/427a8d0f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the HOT mailing list