[HOT] Squared buildings

Mon Apr 25 13:20:53 UTC 2016

Do people leave helpful comments when validating tasks?

I lead Missing Maps sessions where I'm often the only "experienced" OSMer.
I do tend to include squaring/circling buildings in my demo steps, and I
just bought a few cheap USB mice o have those available

More importantly, after the event I try to review at least one task per
user at the event. If I invalidate that task, I will try and find another
of theirs that I can validate. I'm told invalidating a task sends a message
(with the comment contents) to the user. Validating a task will send a
message to the user if I use @ and include their username. For tasks that
would be invalid, I either make sure I mention what I fixed or I invalidate
it (even if it would be quick to fix) to give the mapper a chance to see &
fix what they did wrong/missed.

I'm not great at reviewing, because often I find it hard to have the time
and I don't find the tools fast for finding/reviewing tasks of new users.
Not all users manage to use our event hashtag in the change comment.

I know it's not practical to leave a message on every task reviewed, but
maybe reviewers could aim to comment on ~5 tasks per reviewing session (or
10 per 100 they review, etc).
I appreciate those who do a lot of viewing. 100% green looks better than
100% orange.

>From Newcastle,
Gregory (LivingWithDragons)

On 17 April 2016 at 23:30, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:

> And Jo hasn't been validating all that much building related tasks lately.
> He only started again about a day ago, due to a Mapathon happening nearby
> to him...
>
> Jo got distracted validating schools in Uganda and doing interesting stuff
> with Python to add those to Wikidata as well. Or creating spreadsheet
> formulas to help others add stuff caught in spreadsheets.
>
> Anyway, so even Jo gets tired of squaring the lot of them.
>
> I don't know if it's superimportant to make them rectangular. When I do
> validate buildings, I like them to be squared because, indeed, I think
> trapezoid shaped buildings look ugly when rendered. If they would be
> trapezoid shaped in reality, this would probably not bother me though.
>
> Jo
>
>
>
>
> 2016-04-17 23:19 GMT+02:00 john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>:
>
>> Just to recap the problems, we start with iD not displaying the
>> buildings in the tile, whether this is because the time has lapsed and a
>> second mapper has started on the tile or iD not showing all the detail I'm
>> not concerned with the reason simply the fact that to me its not reliable.
>>
>> Then we have mappers not using mice and not zooming in.
>>
>> Huts seem routinely to be one mapped correctly then all the next ones
>> people come across are cut and paste of the first.  This means the size of
>> many is incorrect.
>>
>> We have an expectation that if we look at the area of the building we can
>> estimate the population.
>>
>> So we end up with a lot of approximately mapped buildings which we then
>> ask people to square.  When we square we are approximating again which
>> means the accuracy for building area goes down even further.
>>
>> Whilst Jo is happy to carefully inspect each building after squaring I
>> probably don’t have the patience when faced with a large number and I
>> suspect a fair number of validators feel the same.  Especially when its
>> faster to go in delete the lot and remap with JOSM building_tool plugin.
>>
>> I think we can assume that a four sided building will have four sides
>> when mapped.
>>
>> I personally think that a squared building looks better but from a
>> functional point of view we know there is a building there, the aid workers
>> have a map which shows them the location and if the four sides aren't
>> perfectly square they will still be able to recognise it.
>>
>> My personal view is for four sided buildings some sort of image
>> recognition software as the first pass followed by validation would give us
>> much better accuracy and probably be faster.
>>
>> My second choice would be to use something like the building_tool plugin
>> for JOSM. It would give us much better accuracy and people might even
>> manage to get the building lined up with the four corners of the image.
>>
>> We could of course clone Jo but that might be difficult.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>>
>> On 17 April 2016 at 14:40, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> I'm validating tasks with many buildings in it and even though we
>>> stressed on it for the Mapathon, I still find quite a few of them not being
>>> made rectangular.
>>>
>>> So I started using this search to find all the buildings with 4 nodes:
>>>
>>> building inview nodes:4
>>> Square them all, then search like this:
>>> building parent modified
>>>
>>> So you can add all the buildings which have nodes that moved to the todo
>>> list. Then you can use ] quickly to review them and see if it still makes
>>> sense. use 'w' to move their nodes if needed, followed by 'q'. Then ']'
>>> again to move to the next one. This makes it relatively efficient without
>>> losing accuracy. It definitely beats ]q]q]q]q]q] :-)
>>>
>>> Then search again using:
>>>
>>> building inview nodes:5-
>>>
>>> to review the ones with more nodes.
>>>
>>> building inview nodes:-9
>>>
>>> also works to exclude round buildings.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-04-15 1:23 GMT+02:00 john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> >2. Validation - either invalidate or fix.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own
>>>> or the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be
>>>> fixed in the validation step.
>>>>
>>>> I think less well under half of the mapped tiles in HOT have been
>>>> validated and of those that have I'd say another 20+% wouldn't meet my
>>>> personal standards and 50+% wouldn't meet Jo's.  I admit my personal
>>>> validation standard is aimed more at making sure what is there is
>>>> reasonably correct according to the project instructions.
>>>>
>>>>  So are you suggesting gold standard validation ie JOSM plugin todo
>>>> list and each building is examined carefully before squaring?
>>>>
>>>> Is some form of bulk squaring acceptable?  On the grounds its better
>>>> than nothing?
>>>>
>>>> If the tiles get invalidated who do we expect to come back and fix
>>>> them?  Remember 99% of the "unoffical" maperthon mappers will never return.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of projects that have many of these types of buildings
>>>> which may not be attractive to validate should we just ignore the problem
>>>> and hope one day someone will gold plate validate the project.  It may even
>>>> happen.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that validation is voluntary and validators can choose which
>>>> projects to validate on and which to just ignore.
>>>>
>>>> I accept some of the big organised groups probably think they have
>>>> proper training on their organised maperthons and tame validators to map
>>>> their particular projects so for them the problem doesn't exist but think
>>>> in terms of HOT generally, think in terms of the maperthons that take place
>>>> with no experienced mappers.  They exist.
>>>>
>>>> I understand it is not an easy question and there are very different
>>>> view points but I think we need to have the discussion and attempt to reach
>>>> some sort of consensus of how to get the most out of the limited resources
>>>> we have rather than have individual validators make their own pragmatic
>>>> decisions.  One of which is delete them all and remap, its faster.
>>>>
>>>> Cheerio John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14 April 2016 at 18:33, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped
>>>>>> buildings would be?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Determine the cause(s) of the poorly mapped buildings. Do we need
>>>>> more helpers in MM mapathons? The last one I did, we had a number of new
>>>>> mappers. Those of us helping were stretched just answering questions. Not
>>>>> being able to spend time going over people work. And yes - we did teach
>>>>> squaring buildings. We also recommended people bring a mouse to the
>>>>> session. One of our team brought extra for people to use and I even lent
>>>>> mine out. Drawing features without a mouse is difficult. We've even
>>>>> suggested to Red Cross that they have a bag of mice to lend during MM
>>>>> events.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Validation - either invalidate or fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own
>>>>> or the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be
>>>>> fixed in the validation step.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Clifford
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> @osm_seattle
>>>>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
>>>>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>

-- 
Gregory
osm at livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20160425/85337f66/attachment.html>