[Osmf-talk] Wrap-up email about an OSMF Tasking Manager Was:Re: Why not an OSMF Tasking Manager ?

[Simon Poole]

Augustin, while I can see the reasoning behind your proposal (and have
run an instance of the HOT tasking myself for many years, possibly as
one of the first to do so). I don't quite see the qualitative
improvement vs. independent instances if the OSMF would run simply yet
another one (note on the side: anybody is free to use the instance at
http://tasks.osm.ch/ ).

On the other hand having such functionality integrated (fsvo) in the
rails-port (the OSM website) directly at the "finger tips" of and easily
discoverable and shareable by OSM contributors could make a substantial
difference.

However such a project would be quite substantial (in more than one
aspect) and at least the EWG hasn't been very enthusiastic about the
idea the times I've proposed it.

Simon

On 23.12.2018 13:00, Augustin Doury wrote:
>
> Disclaimer: english is not my native language, please don't focus on
> specific vocabulary choices
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for your different answers !
>
>   * *Quick remind*
>
> Firstly I would like to remind quickly the 4 reasons why I think "OSMF
> should propose an independant and robust Tasking Manager alternative
> to the OSM community".
> The detailed arguments are available in the first email of this thread.
>
>  1. Tasking Managers are used by thousands of mappers and concern
>     millions of edit, the software seems to be an inescapable way of
>     contribution for many mappers
>  2. propose a TM instance which is not necessarily linked to
>     Humanitarian stuff (but could be)
>  3. propose a TM instance which is stable and independant of the Area
>     of Interest
>  4. propose a TM instance where OSM contributors can contribute
>     independently of any official organisation
>
>   * *About the issue around technical skills to run an instance*
>
> @Blake : thanks to propose your technical skills about TM install, as
> you said "under the auspices of the OSMF and appropriate Working
> Group". Happy to know that an OSMF TM instance could make sense for you !
>
>   * *About the counter-argument "there are plenty of examples out
>     there for running a TM outside the HOT domain".*
>
> Thanks Steven and Ralph for your answers. Despite all this instances,
> I'm still convinced of the initial proposition for an OSMF TM.
> => my initial email mentioned that : "/They are many existing
> instances [link
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager#Operational_installations_of_the_Tasking_Manager>],
> but most of them are "country based", are not always up-to-date (the
> migration from v2 to v3 is not easy), and do not necessarily offer a
> "guarantee of service"/.
>
> If needed, here are more details to illustrate that.
> 20 TM instances are "declared" on the Wiki:
>
>   * 9 instances are running TM version 3 while 8 are running TM version 2
>   * 3 doesn't seem to work
>   * 15 are country-based
>   * 5 focus on humanitarian&development or environment or historical map
>   * 0 propose an alternative which could be compatible with arguments
>     above (cf "Quick Remind" point) n°2, 3 and 4 in favor of "OSMF
>     should propose an independant and robust Tasking Manager
>     alternative to the OSM community". But it's always possible to
>     debate on arguments !
>
> I think it's interesting that there are at least 15 country-based TM
> (Canada, Colombie, Finlande, Portugal, Indonesia etc.) which could be
> interpreted as a wish by countries communities to have a local
> independent instance, and also probably an instance where people can
> "get creation rights (like software is not designed for anyone to
> create a project) [...] within a short time" as Severin explained.
> IMO these observations are in favour of an OSMF independant and
> up-to-date TM instance. As a matter of fact, a lot of mappers from
> local communities can't have access to a country-based local instance
> (because their country doesn't have one) and so don't have any other
> choice than choose an instance focused on thematics (hum/dev,
> environment etc.) and/or run by a specific organization for which TM
> users are indeed considers as official volunteers.
>
>   * *About  "TM technical limits and potential resolution" raised by
>     Severin*
>
> Thanks Severin to show your interest and to propose to participate in
> this topic. You accent on some issues which could not be ignored if
> OSMF decides to run a TM instance, particularly (as I understood):
>
>   * multiple instance implies : how to ensure a minimum coordination
>     between them ? (ex : avoid to create two similar projects on 2
>     different instances) *>>>* this problem already exists and would
>     not be specific to an OSMF TM instance.
>   * how to maintain a "generic" fork of the TM Github main repo ? that
>     should not be complicated if we just personalize main text areas.
>   * how to deal with the TM "project manager" status, given that TM
>     "is not designed for anyone to create a project" *>>>* IMO, the
>     must challenging point to discuss further
>   * how to deal with "organized edits" ? running an OSMF TM would be
>     an "an additional workload" for OSMF. We must think about a "test
>     period".
>
>
>   * *What's next ?*
>
> With Blake and Severin it's like at least 3 people are interested in
> working/help on this subject, maybe the begining of a WG ?
> I think it could be so valuable to have:
>
>   * more inputs from people on this list
>   * an idea of what could be the conditions to realize this project
>     "under the auspices of the OSMF and appropriate Working Group"
>
> Have a good day !
>
> Augustin Doury
>
> PS : because my message was rejected by the list (too big), I've
> deleted thread's older emails from below 
>
> -----
>
> COPY/PAST from Severin email which is only readable outside the
> mailbox and I'm not sure everybody got it >> Le 2018-12-21 22:57,
> Severin Menard a écrit :
>
> (Original en français, automatic translation by Deepl with slight
> corrections below) :
> https://mail.protonmail.com/eo/message/jup9rQTLk_Fm56vD1vZoVILs1K-oN7h-B9BbEVMh6DKnJLjjrzTyVgmn5KfQGYHCJblrxMTIFPyuBZQdXIFoKg==
>
> I think Augustin is totally aware of the existence of different
> instances of the Tasking Manager (TM). In the past, he has even
> administered a server hosting a TM
> instance.                                 
>  
> The creation of an OSMF instance of the Tasking Manager is an idea to
> be explored, but it is important to be aware that it will not de facto
> solve some of the concerns encountered in the implementation and
> coordination of the various projects present in the different TM
> instances.                                                              
>  
> The main current limitation of the TM remains the lack of a clear
> vision of the projects created. True, version 3 of the TM includes a
> mapping in the form of punctuals categorized according to their degree
> of priority, but this is not enough to visualize the spatial extension
> of projects and only concerns those specific to each instance. There
> is currently no software development to recover the spatial extensions
> of each project (which the TM has long produced in GeoJSON format)
> from the various deployed instances of the TM (at least those known)
> in the form of a geographical layer that would replace the silo point
> mapping of version 3. It would show the spatial extensions and also
> share some information: host authority, date of creation, date of last
> contribution, % completeness, typology (e.g. buildings only, detailed
> baseline data, road network, residential areas, etc.) and a link to
> the project. This mash up of existing inter-instance projects would be
> integrated into the steps of creating a new project on each of the
> instances integrating this new software development, which would allow
> any creator to ensure that they do not duplicate an existing project
> in any part, or at least to be aware of it.
>  
> This is a development that the Foundation could consider funding in
> case the NGO HOT US Inc, which has carried out the latest developments
> of the TM, does not wish to do so. 
>  
> However, it would not prevent the implementation of a TM managed by
> the OSMF, if its members so wish. This body would de facto represent
> the most generic a priori body of the TM, but I do not believe that it
> would be more official than the existing bodies and even less that it
> could become the only available TM, because 1 basically a free service
> is more efficient when it is replicated, 2 this would go in the
> opposite direction of the decentralising will of the OSMF and 3 the
> groups or structures that implement their own TM are committed to
> it.                                                                                                                          
>  
> In my own experience as administrator of users of an instance of the
> Tasking Manager, the problem for anyone who wants to be able to create
> a project is not to find an instance, but to get creation rights (like
> software is not designed for anyone to create a project) and often
> within a short time. These OSM contributors naturally go to the first
> instance they naturally think of (that of HOT US Inc or on a national,
> regional, thematic basis, etc.) and to a second instance if they could
> not have creative rights in the first. It would then be up to the OSMF
> to find a way to satisfy requests for additional fees in its proceedings.
> One solution could be that this instance could be open to any OSM
> contributor without specific rights for the creation of new projects,
> but this would also require a TM software development which currently,
> unless I am mistaken, does not allow this.
>                                                                                                                    
> This does not mean that the creation of a TM project via an open
> instance is not without constraints. Since the TM involves in the vast
> majority of its projects managed editions, for which a guideline was
> recently defined by the DWG and approved in November by the OSMF
> board, logically each project creator of the OSMF instance will have
> to create a wiki page explaining the modalities of the managed
> editions of the project. This instance of the OSMF would also
> necessarily constitute an additional workload for the DWG and
> therefore a possible brake. These questions and constraints would
> probably require starting with a time-limited test period followed by
> an evaluation. I would be happy to participate in this topic.
>                     
>  
>  
> Severin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20181223/5af88e97/attachment.html>