[HOT] Validating & TM2 - providing feedback to new mappers
nick.allen.54 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 00:29:15 UTC 2014
On the subject of validation.
As someone who now spends most of their mapping time validating, I think
we 'sell' it the wrong way. I only use the validation button in JOSM now
if I think I am going to find something, and generally use the
HOT-Validate paint Style (Well worth trying if you're a JOSM user, even
if you don't validate). But I think even that is too much of a
requirement. I have seen some excellent mapping by iD & Potlatch users &
I would like to see some of them carrying out validating - if they are
capable of mapping to such a high standard then they are perfectly
capable of zooming in to look at others work & saying 'yes', 'yes but',
or 'no'. I rarely use the 'no' option and to be honest it could just as
easily be an experienced mapper because it generally means there is a
significant portion of the square not mapped (I like to think the
imagery didn't load properly & that was why they missed the village
I'd like to see us rewrite the manuals, wiki's, slideshows etc., so they
show mapping for HOT needs roads connected, traced at a suitable scale &
classed more or less correctly (I don't think we should get too hung up
about this - its often only when you are looking at an area of several
squares in size that you can work out which are the primary, secondary,
tertiary etc - get it traced, tag what it looks like & make sure that
someone with an overview alters the tags later if need be). Buildings
square or round and as accurate as they can be within reason. Rivers
traced. leisure= common & amenity=school where appropriate - anything
else specific to the project.
Make sure that Mapping = was done ok.
It would be good to offer variety to our mappers & validating, if sold
correctly, is not difficult & can be very rewarding. 99% of the time I'm
making comments like 'All looks good, thanks'. Occasionally it's
something like 'Looks good, but can you join the roads to each other &
not the landuse=residential boundary. I've sorted it this time', I
worried for a while about sending messages to mappers about ways they
could improve, but the feedback I've had from those concerned has been
good, and I make sure I only send a message if it's obvious the person
is making the same mistake consistently - a point in case being round
huts which are not obvious unless someone points them out. (wiki entry
if I've interested you).
I'd still like a tick box in the TM so that when I want to send my
comments to the mapper, I can easily do so. But I don't think that is as
important as allowing mappers easier access to the validators comments.
Just a few thoughts - by the way, I'd welcome help from anyone who
fancies doing more validating! If you'd like it, I'm quite happy to
validate your validations until you feel more confident.
Volunteer 'Tallguy' for
Treasurer, website & Bonus Ball admin for
http://www.6thswanleyscouts.org.uk/ (treasurer at 6thswanleyscouts.org.uk
<mailto:treasurer at 6thswanleyscouts.org.uk>)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT