[HOT] validating tiles

Pete Masters pedrito1414 at googlemail.com
Wed Mar 25 18:12:39 UTC 2015


It's an interesting discussion and one that we have fairly frequently.

At the mapathons we run in London, whoever is doing the training is careful
to make clear that volunteers should mark squares as done once they think
they are done. They are reassured that when a validator goes over their
mapping, they will either validate or they will help the mapper to develop
by providing pointers. They are encouraged, at that point, to go over their
work.

In the same vein, we have tables at mapathons where people who have been to
a few Missing Maps events start to validate the other attendees' work,
under the supervision of an experienced HOTty. These guys are encouraged
from the outset to leave positive and instructive feedback at the point of
invalidation.

We are trying to find ways to teach diligence whilst inspiring confidence
in the new mappers. Anecdotally, we think these measures are working, but
it would great to know. I love Blake's idea to data mine the effectiveness
of this!

Cheers,

Pete

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:36 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:

> "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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>


-- 
*Pete Masters*
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
+44 7921 781 518

missingmaps.org <http://www.missingmaps.org/>

*@pedrito1414* <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
*@theMissingMaps* <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
*facebook.com/MissingMapsProject*
<https://www.facebook.com/MissingMapsProject>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20150325/dbc5f969/attachment.html>


More information about the HOT mailing list