[HOT] validating tiles

Wed Mar 25 19:30:19 UTC 2015

And just to go off at a tangent has anyone thought about tapping into old
people's homes?  Some residents are mentally alert and it might help keep
them amused.  Not a full scale mapathon and you might even have to explain
what a mouse is.  Many will not have wifi, but JOSM can work off line and I
understand even hold the images for a tile or two off line as well but if
you can pull it off you might find five or so residents per home putting an
hour a day into it and before anyone asks, my home contacts are 3,000 miles
away so I'm not best placed to do this, and I suspect you'd need to talk it
through with a home and someone who knows this sort of resident first on
how best to approach it.

Cheerio John

On 25 March 2015 at 14:12, Pete Masters <pedrito1414 at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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/20150325/03a73efc/attachment.html>