[OSM-talk] Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back
Randy
rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 28 22:13:39 GMT 2010
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>I ran a mapping party in Fareham, Hampshire, UK in which three newbies
>came, back at the start of November. These three newbies, who were
>reasonably adept at using computers but not "geeks", if you get what I
>mean, were able to successfully use JOSM - something harder than Potlatch,
>perhaps - to add street names to unnamed streets in Fareham. So I'm not
>sure that either editor is that hard to use given a proper
>demonstration.
>
>Nick
Nick,
The users that you mention as an example, have already made an initial
commitment to OSM by even being at a mapping party. The people I'm
thinking of are those who haven't had, nor are likely to have the
opportunity for that type of initial experience. In the US, propably 90%+
of the area (although granted not 90% of the mappable objects) are in
areas where there are no active user organizations, or possibly any
current active mappers. Potential newbies need to see something that will
tweak their interest, and that they can interact with from a cold start,
with no human assistance, probably based on a defect/omission that they
have seen in OSM or one of the commercial maps.
I'm not sure if anyone is thinking along the lines of allowing a user to
immediately make changes, without signing up for an account. There are
pros and cons to that. I'm neutral on the issue, as long as proper
precautions are taken. If the capability to make changes without an
account were provided, then I certainy agree that the edits should be
limited to only adding POIs and street names. Even changing names
shouldn't be allowed, since that opens the vandalism can of worms much
more. And, if the changes are anonimous (i.e., without an account), they
should include a unique "newbie" user tag, so that any time an experienced
user wants to take a look at the newbie changes to see if a vandal has
been at work, it will be easy to do. And, reversion of changes under that
tag, should require minimum coordination.
If an account is required, then I think providing something like a "dumbed
down" Potlatch would be more appropriate. I really do believe that a
simple clean interface to making changes at "the next level", whatever
that is, would be appropriate. Obviously the allowed features list is
debatable. I would like to see a little more than Roy wants, but
significantly less than full Potlatch. I'm sure there are many different
opinions, all with some level of validity. And, I think I agree with Roy
to some extent, in that it would be better to err on the lower capability
side than the higher to start with. If experience shows that the initial
level of capabability is not leading to significant mapping problems, and
the newbies think it is too restrictive, then adding a considered
increment in capability would be merited. That is one advantage of basing
the limited editor on a full fledged editor. It would be easier to shift
capability from one level to the other, in either direction.
I have to admit that I only took a cursory look at an early Potlatch 2
development, but will certainly give it another look. I typically use
JOSM. Probably because I just feel more confortable working off line, and
the variety of plug-ins attracts me. But, I do use Potlatch occasionally
for doing the quick simple things that are rarely much more than I think
appropriate for the "intermediate newbie". With some optional interactive
instructions ("you have placed that way node on or near another way,
should they be connected?"). I think Potlatch's templates could easily be
used in a restrictive manner that only allows a limited selectable subset
of attributes with no free text entry, except for names.
Yes, I agree with whoever suggested it (Liz?) that a wiki for allowed
newbie features and other design suggestions would be a great idea. There
have been some good ideas thrown out, and it's too hard to capture and
organize them in talk.
(Hmm. My talk messages continue to be way too long!)
--
Randy
More information about the talk
mailing list