[HOT] How newer mappers can help a lot with the validation process

[Jo]

If such a volunteer becomes more confident after a while, they shouldn't
hesitate to actually validate the task, if all was mapped well and they
didn't have to add/change much.

When I look at finished tiles, I start with the intention to validate it.
If I have to do too much work on it, I will sometimes simply unlock once
again, either leaving a note it's actually complete now.
If there is still more work than I have time for at that time, it's better
to "invalidate", so another mapper knows where more work is needed.

Polyglot

2016-02-11 14:47 GMT+01:00 Blake Girardot <bgirardot at gmail.com>:

>
> That is a good point John, if anyone does a second look to map in missing
> buildings in a "completed" task square you should leave a comment on the
> task square that says you looked over the completed task square and filled
> in all the missing buildings you could find.
>
> For sure it is not a waste of time to review completed task squares, but I
> agree, it probably only needs one going over before validation.
>
> In addition, this is a very helpful way for new mappers to become better
> mappers and contribute to an urgent priority project to get done well and
> fast.
>
> Tiny task squares help, but stuff still gets missed and often we don't get
> the validation stage completed in time, no matter how important it is so an
> informal review makes a big difference if that is what a volunteer wants to
> do and can contribute.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Blake
>
>
>
> On 2/11/2016 2:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure this is the best use of our very limited number of
>> mappers.  Just scanning a tile takes time, so the optimum use of mapper
>> time is to have them scan once when they map and have a validator scan
>> once.
>>
>> For a productivity point of view its better to have new mappers split
>> the tiles twice and map a tiny tile completely than have twenty of them
>> go over the same area.  From the same point of view its better to have
>> them map where we have good imagery than map where quote "You may have
>> to squint a bit".  Mapping whilst squinting takes more time to map the
>> same area than mapping where the imagery is good.  No matter where they
>> map it will be useful to someone if not a short term MSF or American Red
>> Cross project and to be honest if something like Ebola crops up having
>> fairly good mapping of existing highways and villages in place before
>> you start helps those projects in the field at least plan out what and
>> where.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 10 February 2016 at 10:28, Blake Girardot <bgirardot at gmail.com
>> <mailto:bgirardot at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     I just want to mention, that new mappers can really help with the
>>     validation process by doing what they typically do: Map in roads and
>>     buildings but into "Completed" task squares.
>>
>>     You do not need to mark a task square "Validated", but just
>>     reviewing the completed squares and filling in missing things or
>>     fixing up buildings that might not be mapped very well (squaring up
>>     the rectangular buildings :) is immensely helpful.
>>
>>     I wrote a short OSM Diary entry that says basically the same thing:
>>
>>     http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bgirardot/diary/36235
>>
>>     I just thought I would mention it because if you see projects on the
>>     Tasking Manager that look "done" just know you can always help a bit
>>     more by reviewing "Completed" task squares just to double check
>>     nothing was missed even if you do not feel experienced enough to
>>     "Validate" a task square.
>>
>>     This is especially true for projects where we have made a call for
>>     more mappers on the email list or via twitter. Double and triple
>>     checks to make sure the mapping in the instructions is actually
>>     complete really helps in the process and gets the people on the
>>     ground the best data we can possible generate for them.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Blake
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     HOT mailing list
>>     HOT at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20160211/57a67d06/attachment.html>