[HOT] validating tiles

[john whelan]

"Needs another look?" maybe, both incomplete and invalid are slightly
negative.  I like the idea of sending someone a more positive message when
their tiles have been validated, could it include the comment by the
validator?

Cheerio John

On 25 March 2015 at 11:27, James Conkling <james.lane.conkling at gmail.com>
wrote:

> '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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150325/719d523a/attachment.html>