[Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 131, Issue 48
Nate Wessel
bike756 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 27 00:52:11 UTC 2019
I'm all for this, so long as it really is just for validation. I believe
we can leave notes on tasks via the tasking manager (?), which might be
a good way to catalogue any localized issues we see.
Nate Wessel
Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning
NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
On 1/26/19 2:16 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Perhaps a way forward at the moment would be to open the task manager
> up so the tiles imported so far can be validated.
>
> Having lived with computers for many years I'm in total agreement,
> they work very quickly but have no common sense what so ever.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 1:56 PM Nate Wessel <bike756 at gmail.com
> <mailto:bike756 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Getting a clear idea of what needs to be fixed is what validation
> is all about. Having a second set of eyes look through everyone's
> imported data in a systematic way will give us ideas for what we
> need to fix moving forward. It can't be just a matter of looking
> at a bunch of automated validation script outputs and issuing a
> checkmark. Machines can do that - us humans can do better, and
> that's a big part of the beauty of OSM: the human element.
>
> If I may be permitted a tangent, I was fairly troubled at the last
> State of the Map US conference that the focus of attention seemed
> to have turned to a surprising degree toward "what cool things can
> machines do with data" from the focus I saw in earlier years,
> which was much more "how can we get more people engaged?".
> Machines don't make quality data - only consistent errors. I'm
> glad the big tech companies were buying us all beers (there was
> soooo much free beer...) but we shouldn't adopt their narrow focus
> on labor efficiency and automation. I don't think efficiency is
> why we are all here.
>
> ...
>
> I was going to address some of your other points, but I think my
> little digression actually highlighted some of the differences in
> the way we seem to be approaching all of these issues. I'm not a
> fan of automation and efficiency at the cost of quality (in this
> context), while that is a compromise you and others seem willing
> to make. We may not be able to talk our way out of that difference
> of opinion; the root of the issue is likely just a different
> vision of OSM and why we each care about it.
>
> Nate Wessel
> Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban
> Planning
> NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
>
> On 1/26/19 12:48 PM, Danny McDonald wrote:
>> 1. In terms of validation, it would be helpful to have a clear
>> idea of what sorts of problems need to be fixed. I have
>> re-validated almost all of the areas I imported (and all of them
>> in Central Toronto), and fixed all of the building related
>> errors/warnings I found (with a few exceptions) there weren't
>> many errors, and many pre-dated the import. The only JOSM warning
>> I didn't fix is "Crossing building/residential area". Yaro's and
>> John's areas don't seem to have many errors either, although
>> there a few isolated "Crossing building/highway" warnings (and
>> some "building duplicated nodes" errors). I have also split big
>> retail buildings in dense areas.
>> 2. I'm fine with simplification, I think we should just do it.
>> In terms of orthogonalization, I don't understand why
>> non-orthogonal buildings are a problem. If they are, JOSM allows
>> them to be auto-fixed.
>> 3. I agree that the task manager squares are too big in central
>> Toronto. A separate task can be created for central Toronto
>> only, with smaller squares. I think the square size is fine
>> outside of Toronto, as long as the squares are split appropriately.
>> 4. In terms of conflation, I agree that deleting and re-adding
>> buildings is not desirable, but I don't agree that that means it
>> should never be done, no matter the time cost. The ideal
>> solution here is some sort of script/plugin that auto-merges new
>> and recently added buildings - basically, an iterated "replace
>> geometry".
>> DannyMcD
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20190126/61561723/attachment.html>
More information about the Talk-ca
mailing list