[HOT] validating tiles

James Conkling james.lane.conkling at gmail.com
Wed Mar 25 15:27:41 UTC 2015


'incomplete' instead of 'invalid'?

I'll be honest, I've never validated a task b/c I thought you needed a
certain level of 'certification' (even informally).

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Blake Girardot <bgirardot at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> This is kind of a very subtle point, but I have written about it before:
>
> I find it difficult to validate tiles because they so often need more work
> and are not really "done".
>
> That leaves me with these choices:
>
> 1. Do the mapping myself, which I usually do, but then I have less time
> for validating tiles.
>
> 2. Mark the tile "invalid" and know that a new mapper is going to get an
> email saying their work has been "invalidated." I never do this unless it
> was clearly marked done as a mistake.
>
> 3. Unlock the tile and leave it as is for someone else to deal with. I do
> this more often than I care to admit.
>
> I think we could do 1 or 2 things that would make the process a bit better:
>
> 1. We could change the term from "invalid", a somewhat strong term in
> English and what I consider "de-motivating". I can't think of one word, but
> we need something more friendly like "Needs more mapping"
>
> 2. Not send notices for "invalidated" tasks, and instead send
> notifications for "validated" tasks. I think mappers would be more
> motivated by getting positive feedback than negative feedback.
>
> We could probably data mine the answer, but I wonder how many mappers who
> marked a tile "done" (often not even the person who did the mapping) and
> get an "invalidated" notice go then back and do the corrective mapping.
>
> I think option 2 would be very easy to implement. I know I would do more
> validations and tiles that needed more mapping might get more mapping if I
> didn't have to worry about discouraging new mappers by "invalidating" tasks.
>
> On a related note: I would encourage anyone who is doing training at
> missing maps or mapping parties to let mappers know, "invalidated" is
> totally fine and really just means "needs more mapping".
>
> Cheers,
> Blake
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/25/2015 2:51 AM, Daniel Specht wrote:
>
>> Lots of projects are mapped quickly, but validated  slowly. This could
>> be because
>> (A) beginners don't feel qualified to pass judgement
>> (B) people don't like to pass judgement
>> (C)  doing original work is more fun than reviewing someone else's work.
>>
>> I have a couple suggestions for encouraging validation.
>>
>> 1.  Include instructions for validation on the instructions tab.
>>     Because the instructions tab only has mapping instructions, readers
>> may think that validation is for someone else to do.
>>
>> 2.  Include validation statistics on the stats tab.
>>    Because the stats tab only has statistics for tiles completed,
>> mappers may think that validating tiles is not essential. Also, these
>> statistics give the mapper, but not the validator, a psychological
>> reward. I've been validating a lot of tiles -- sometimes I seem to be
>> doing most of the validations on a project -- and even though seeing the
>> number by your name increment isn't the biggest thrill in the world, I
>> have to admit that I miss it..
>> --
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150325/ad9f5a68/attachment.html>


More information about the HOT mailing list