[HOT] Final request for feedback - Activation Protocol

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 00:12:47 UTC 2015


My feeling is validation should be formally mentioned before phase three.
I agree the document is a great step forward over what we have but just as
in computer programming the earlier you catch the mistakes the cheaper it
is to fix so in HOT mapping.  Catch someone's mistakes early and hopefully
they won't continue to make the same mistake again.  Leave it to the end of
the project and you have twenty tiles to clean up whilst catch it early and
you only need clean up one.

Tactful words are not my specialty and I'm sure that someone can phrase it
better.  Perhaps it should be in the instructions to project managers, line
up a couple of people who are willing to validate and stick a note on the
project this project is validated as the tiles are completed.

I merely raise the issue.

Cheerio John

On 14 July 2015 at 19:30, Russell Deffner <russell.deffner at hotosm.org>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> If there is some particular wording suggestion you have, go ahead and
> comment directly on the document.  In general, this does increase the role
> of validation as we are going to build out a training specifically for that
> role.  I was actually getting around to including you in the building of
> that training, so in general I think these concerns will be addressed
> during that process.
>
>
>
> Chat more soon,
>
> =Russ
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0112 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:33 AM
> *To:* Russell Deffner
> *Cc:* hot
> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Final request for feedback - Activation Protocol
>
>
>
> The only thing I'd suggest is stronger empathise on the role of
> validation.  Feedback by end users at a recent AID conference in Ottawa was
> the maps were great but please could we arrange for them to be validated as
> the quality was variable.
>
> I note we include the words about new mappers but for the maps to be more
> reliable they need to be validated and not just by another new mapper.
>
> I like the idea that there is some sort of review of older projects with
> the idea of either turning them into a missing map project or simply
> archiving them.
>
> Projects that ask for buildings typically don't get completed, could this
> be taken into account in the activation process?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 13 July 2015 at 21:40, Russell Deffner <russell.deffner at hotosm.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hello HOT community,
>
>
>
> There has been a tremendous collaboration to create the draft Activation
> Protocol; a great thank you to everyone who has contributed so far. On
> behalf of Tyler, Mhairi and myself; we welcome you to make one more review
> of the content this week before we ‘take-it-offline’ for print-editing
> (with a huge advanced thank you to Katja for helping us with that).
>
>
>
> With that said, please be advised that all the figures/tables/etc. are my
> sketch-up and should not be considered final/good/etc – just a sketch of
> what the final product will contain.
>
>
>
> The draft document can be found here:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qefHRE3_wUyG3lMSb7NlkSDtPuQeaQXsflkxt3E3xSA
> or via the HOT Drive.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> =Russ
>
>
>
> Russell Deffner
>
> Russell.Deffner at hotosm.org
>
> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT)
>
> http://hotosm.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150714/5724193e/attachment.html>


More information about the HOT mailing list