Hello,
Cheers to Blake and Dan for articulating all I have been feeling
about doing validations.
I do think that new terminology is needed ("invalidated" -- ugh!).
Why not just change it to "needs more mapping"? We don't need a single
word.
Also, it would be good to have a place to be a bit more specific
about what more needs to be done, such as "some buildings missing" or
"some ways missing."
As I think I said before, it also took me a little while to figure
out how to stop work on a particular section without clicking the
"Done" button. After I figured out that all I had to do was post a note
about how much I had been able to do, I no longer was clicking "Done"
incorrectly. We should make sure that it is clear how to stop working
on a section and let people know it's not done.
Last, Dan reminds us that someone (usually he) has to do the
validation work and that we all should pitch in, even if we are not
deeply experienced. If we see things that are not finished, but we
don't have the time to finish them ourselves, there should be an easy
way to indicate that someone else still needs to get in there and finish
the corrections. That way, the work gets spread around.
Martijn van Exel's Maproulette included several ways to indicate
the status of each correction, such as "could not fix it" or "needs more
work." That is a good model for validating in HOT.
Charlotte
At 08:09 AM 3/25/2015, you 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 "demotivating." 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 > <mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org>HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
> _______________________________________________
HOT mailing list <mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org>HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techl...@techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
