[HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[john whelan]

Apols then I was thinking purely in HOT terms.  In HOT terms we map, then
validate which I agree is something that OSM does not normally do.  JOSM is
a much better tool than iD for validating since it detects highways that
are almost joined and catches many other errors.  Many HOT projects map
buildings, JOSM with the building_tool plugin has many fewer unsquared
buildings than iD mappers.

Also when validating I can usually tell whether the mapper has been using
iD, JOSM mappers do not have nearly as many untagged ways or buildings
tagged area=yes as new iD mappers.  So in a HOT context moving mappers to
JOSM is normally seen a progression since we need more validators and JOSM
is the tool of choice for validation besides giving fewer errors.  In an
OSM context mappers simply map and to be honest it doesn't matter what tool
they use, tags are very flexible and there is little agreement about what
values should be used, its only in the HOT context that it really matters.

I totally agree with you about consensus etc in OSM it can never be
reached, I don't think a fork for iD for HOT is a terribly good idea
keeping one version maintained is hard enough but at the same time for HOT
where the turnover of new mappers is high, training and the impact of
changing a tag is high and it sounds like this impact was not taken into
account nor is there apparently any structure to take such things into
account.

Cheerio John

On 5 March 2016 at 08:41, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:

> john whelan wrote:
> > When you get to a certain size you need a formal review process
> > before making changes and I think HOT is now at that size.
>
> Which is not at all relevant as iD is not a HOT project.
>
> OSM empowers its developers to make decisions: on openstreetmap-carto, iD,
> JOSM, osm.org, osm2pgsql, you name it. Most developers welcome feedback,
> but
> consensus cannot always be reached, as per the recent changes to osm-carto.
> The idea that you might impose a formal review process to tell non-HOT
> developers what to do is absolutely anathema to OSM and I think would lead
> to a mass walkout of developers.
>
> If you want a humanitarian-focused editor or just a humanitarian-focused
> set
> of presets, then you should host an instance of iD on hotosm.org.
> Otherwise,
> you have to accept that changes will be made.
>
> > Most sane people think in terms of moving mappers to JOSM eventually
>
> Nice insult. Actually http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/5/2/21/htm, published
> a
> fortnight ago, shows that the picture is more varied than you might think.
> France is 84% JOSM vs 9% Potlatch, while the UK is 47% Potlatch vs 42%
> JOSM.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Difficulty-in-communicating-with-iD-users-tp5869083p5869115.html
> Sent from the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap (HOT) mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160305/bfeb06ee/attachment.html>