'incomplete' instead of 'invalid'? I'll be honest, I've never validated a task b/c I thought you needed a certain level of 'certification' (even informally).
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Blake Girardot <bgirar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is kind of a very subtle point, but I have written about it before: > > I find it difficult to validate tiles because they so often need more work > and are not really "done". > > That leaves me with these choices: > > 1. Do the mapping myself, which I usually do, but then I have less time > for validating tiles. > > 2. Mark the tile "invalid" and know that a new mapper is going to get an > email saying their work has been "invalidated." I never do this unless it > was clearly marked done as a mistake. > > 3. Unlock the tile and leave it as is for someone else to deal with. I do > this more often than I care to admit. > > I think we could do 1 or 2 things that would make the process a bit better: > > 1. We could change the term from "invalid", a somewhat strong term in > English and what I consider "de-motivating". I can't think of one word, but > we need something more friendly like "Needs more mapping" > > 2. Not send notices for "invalidated" tasks, and instead send > notifications for "validated" tasks. I think mappers would be more > motivated by getting positive feedback than negative feedback. > > We could probably data mine the answer, but I wonder how many mappers who > marked a tile "done" (often not even the person who did the mapping) and > get an "invalidated" notice go then back and do the corrective mapping. > > I think option 2 would be very easy to implement. I know I would do more > validations and tiles that needed more mapping might get more mapping if I > didn't have to worry about discouraging new mappers by "invalidating" tasks. > > On a related note: I would encourage anyone who is doing training at > missing maps or mapping parties to let mappers know, "invalidated" is > totally fine and really just means "needs more mapping". > > Cheers, > Blake > > > > > > > > > On 3/25/2015 2:51 AM, Daniel Specht wrote: > >> Lots of projects are mapped quickly, but validated slowly. This could >> be because >> (A) beginners don't feel qualified to pass judgement >> (B) people don't like to pass judgement >> (C) doing original work is more fun than reviewing someone else's work. >> >> I have a couple suggestions for encouraging validation. >> >> 1. Include instructions for validation on the instructions tab. >> Because the instructions tab only has mapping instructions, readers >> may think that validation is for someone else to do. >> >> 2. Include validation statistics on the stats tab. >> Because the stats tab only has statistics for tiles completed, >> mappers may think that validating tiles is not essential. Also, these >> statistics give the mapper, but not the validator, a psychological >> reward. I've been validating a lot of tiles -- sometimes I seem to be >> doing most of the validations on a project -- and even though seeing the >> number by your name increment isn't the biggest thrill in the world, I >> have to admit that I miss it.. >> -- >> Dan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> HOT mailing list >> HOT@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >> >> > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > HOT@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
