[HOT] wish list for validators.

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 9 22:35:18 UTC 2017


Silvia and myself validated their mapping on 1396.  I think it took us the
best part of a week and a couple have been seen mapping since.

Cheerio John

On 9 Apr 2017 4:11 pm, "Jo" <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just wanted to mention I'm going to organize a followup meetup at one of
> the universities that participated in that Belgian Mapathon on the 26th of
> April. My intention is to explain mapping with JOSM, of course, but if
> there are a few people that participated, who are coming back, I'll explain
> what's involved in validating to them.
>
> Towards the end of the Mapathon I had already started doing that, but I
> had only 10 of the 300 participants.
>
> Anyway, mostly to mention that at least I, I have not forgotten about
> validation of those tasks.
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2017-04-09 17:08 GMT+02:00 Matthew Gibb <mjngibb at gmail.com>:
>
>> Great feedback, thank you, John.
>>
>> This is definitely a working document so I'll begin incorporating all of
>> your points (or feel free to edit, the settings are open), not to mention
>> most folks have their own process for validating, so some answers may be
>> slightly different, depending on who is writing it. Very good point on the
>> JOSM being mentioned. There's also a working document going around with
>> tips on using JOSM for validation (and mapping in general). We'll want to
>> make sure any available documentation is referenced. Dale and Andrew also
>> made a validation style for JOSM, which I'll include a link to.
>>
>> Quick feedback I think is the biggest hurdle, which is why there has been
>> such a push for more documentation, so that there can be resources for
>> encouraging more users to validate.
>>
>> I know you've led quite a few discussions on this list about validation,
>> so I'll be sure to check through those as well to find a common points.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:16 AM john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Comment on the validation FAQs.
>>>
>>> Comment one feedback, the document talks about positive feedback with
>>> "great work!" citing Martin's research.  Martin's work does not say that
>>> and we have had the discussion here before about the subject.
>>>
>>> Comment two http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/Valid
>>> ating_data exists I suggest a reference to it.
>>>
>>> Comment three nowhere does it mention the desirability of using JOSM.
>>> Nothing else catches the duplicate nodes, crossing highways with no node
>>> and highways that almost meet. JOSM validation hits a few more as well.
>>>
>>> Comment four squaring buildings.  When you square them you change the
>>> area and orientation.  You are doing an approximation. iD is quite capable
>>> of drawing a square building, if its a building only project JOSM
>>> building_tool plugin is faster and accurate.  JOSM can be run from a USB
>>> Stick.  Squaring buildings might look prettier but I don't think it has any
>>> part of validation and I certainly do not think a validator should square
>>> buildings with the nuclear JOSM option.  (select buildings with less than a
>>> certain number of nodes, subselect mapper then "q".)
>>>
>>> Comment five at what point do feedback messages become a nuisance?  We
>>> have mappers who have mapped more than a thousand tiles accurately.  Are
>>> you going to give them 1,000 well done messages?  If the work is more than
>>> ten days old its probably not worth giving feedback.  If they are making a
>>> consistent mistake then hopefully it will have been corrected by now and
>>> you stand the chance of alienation with 20 messages pointing out the same
>>> mistake on work that is a year old.  That's why its important to give
>>> feedback quickly.
>>>
>>> Comment six, given the recent very large Belgium mapathon validating
>>> within a short period of time became a major challenge.  Giving detailed
>>> feedback to mappers who will only map once takes about three or four times
>>> more time than just checking the tiles.  Do you decide to validate as many
>>> tiles as possible or give detailed feedback?  Pros and cons?
>>>
>>> Comment seven most new mappers are not confident enough to mark a tile
>>> done.  These are the mappers you want to catch making errors so they don't
>>> get set in their ways.  Should they be mentioned somewhere?
>>>
>>> Have fun
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>> On 9 April 2017 at 07:55, Matthew Gibb <mjngibb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John, as Pete mentioned, I think there are going to be a number of
>>> features in the TM3 that will help with managing and validating projects.
>>>
>>> I've been putting together a Validation FAQ if anyone would like to
>>> contribute: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BIbdrrSRueNd
>>> xvyoYJJm10VGH-hy0BM13UlSJglgrEg/edit#heading=h.di2zopdzc88x
>>>
>>> We've also got a #validation channel on the HOTOSM slack group, to help
>>> prompt some discussion on validation.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 4:56 AM Florian Niel <florian.niel at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe there could be a button below the "Take a task at random" which
>>> says "Validate a task at random" and behind this button there is an
>>> algorithm which selects the most reasonable task square.
>>>
>>> What makes a task good for validation?
>>>
>>> 1) It has to be finished recently
>>> 2) Tasks by this user have not been validated yet (or just few)
>>> 3) The user is unexperienced
>>> 4) Special importance to users whose tasks vere invalidated
>>> 5) A checkbox (something like "please validate quickly") next to the
>>> "Mark task as done", where mappers can somehow request quick validation
>>> (because they are not sure if they have done it right). Checking this box
>>> would put the task on top of this list. And when this task has been
>>> validated the user should get a message.
>>>
>>> Another validation-related topic:
>>> For me as a mapper, I wish that I would have a list of my finished tasks
>>> where I see which have been validated / invalidated. It would give me a
>>> boost when I see I am doing things right.
>>>
>>> Florian
>>>
>>> Am 25.03.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Pete Masters:
>>>
>>> Hi John, I mentioned this to Blake as feedback to the TM3
>>> consultation.....
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2017 16:08, "john whelan" <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some way to spot the most recently mapped tiles that have not been
>>> validated.  The current activity list isn't too bad except when a mapathon
>>> hits then there are more tiles than the activity list can hold.  Also
>>> validating takes up slots on the list.
>>>
>>> The reason I'm after the most recently mapped tiles is the sooner I can
>>> catch a problem the fewer times it gets repeated so the fewer times it
>>> needs to be corrected.
>>>
>>> I need the order in which they were mapped most recent first.
>>>
>>> Thanks John
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HOT mailing listHOT at openstreetmap.orghttps://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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20170409/704d06b3/attachment.html>


More information about the HOT mailing list