HOT is slightly different to normal OSM in that we normally use a standardised subset of OSM tags, have a formal validation process, we do a lot of training and I think there is much more communication between mappers.
Looking at the OSM map of my local area one of the things that stood out was the variety of tags used. Many assets had been mapped and tagged but not in the way that the rendering systems understood and finding the problem ones one at a time in JOSM was not fun. Igor was very nice to me and added a feature to Maperitive which allows you to export all the tags to a spreadsheet file, sort them and the none standard terms according to the OSM wiki map features standout very quickly. Touch them and you get cries of but I mapped it and that's the way I want it spelt, even though its impossible to print it. You might like to try it in your local area by the way you'll probably find all sorts of hidden gems, and its a useful validation tool for project managers as well. So for general OSM use having consistency in tags and what is seen on the mapping tools isn't quite so important as it is to HOT. HOT builds on the OSM environment. We have a much more formal approach. Miss-tag something and a validator, if we have one will quietly or not so quietly, correct your work to the tag values requested in the instructions. The standardised set of OSM tags are those in the OSM wiki map features or some other part of the wiki such as the African highway bit. For ease of use these should be the same values as the mapper sees when mapping. They should not have to have a look up table that says if the instructions say highway=unclassified then if you are using iD use minor road etc. Adding a line to the instructions to say if you're using iD then do this but if JOSM use that, and if you're using OSMAnd do this isn't that helpful. You have over a thousand projects to go back over and update the instructions. Then you get to the validators. We don't have enough, when we have projects that have validators sitting on them the completion rates are better etc. Are we now complicating life for validations because if the mapper is calling something an apple and the validator an orange then its probable that miscommunication will occur. At the moment I'm unable to see any simple solution, more use of JOSM within HOT would at least keep the tag values the same and we could discuss what they should be. I'm not quite sure how having a Community Manager will help in this situation. I'm fairly certain that some of our most productive mappers and validators are quite happy to simply sit quietly mapping rather than join in the community. Cheerio John On 6 March 2016 at 01:14, Heather Leson <heatherle...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > It is super hard to create software for everyone, especially such a > diverse community like OSM. First and foremost, everyone is a volunteer. > > OSM and HOT are indeed growing. From the notes I ascertain a few actions: > > 1. Better communication and training on the tools and some work on user > guides. The training working group could use a hand, including technical > writers and storytelling to make things as easy as possible. > > 2. Strengthen the feedback and collaboration between all the types of > contributors to support the developers and every stage of mapper. There is > the technical working group. Maybe we need to have an open technology call > just to get to know each other and ask questions. > > 3. More in person conversations, online training/discussion sessions > Blake and Russell have been running Saturday Mapathons online to help > folks. Mailing lists are often flat communications. What I mean by this is > that we often get caught up in the details and forget to give thanks. > > What makes OSM and HOT special is that we are all growing. This means some > 'growing joys' to figure out a balance. > > There are simply only so many hours in a volunteer's day. Truly the Board > and ED dream of getting a Community Manager in place to help make these > items function quicker. Until then, we need to continue to count on each > other. > > > > Heather > > > Heather Leson > heatherle...@gmail.com > Twitter: HeatherLeson > Blog: textontechs.com > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Russell Deffner < > russell.deff...@hotosm.org> wrote: > >> Feasible – maybe with some major discussion with Tech WG and such. >> Desirable – In my opinion, I think so; and actually want to ‘go a step >> further’ in the future for doing Activation simulations and have a >> ‘sandbox’ stack where we can ‘inject’ bad data for validation and such – >> but that’s maybe my personal HOT pipedream :) – on the more >> tangible/near-term level, we have actually discussed having a ‘built-in >> editor/custom iD for projects’; we do some of that (and it’s much easier) >> with JOSM presets/remote control, etc. >> >> >> >> =Russ >> >> >> >> *From:* Matt Sidor [mailto:sead...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 05, 2016 3:47 PM >> *To:* Suzan Reed; Russell Deffner; hot@openstreetmap.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Just a thought, but would it be feasible/desirable to fork the ID editor >> project for HOT-specific use cases? >> >> I'm imagining that the user interface could become more dynamic to match >> specific tasks, e.g. only give the user classification options that match >> the particular task at hand. If a user felt more comfortable with OSM edits >> and wanted to go beyond the task scope, they could open the general OSM ID >> editor instead. >> >> I think this could allow more inexperienced users to contribute to HOT >> tasks without becoming confused by all the different classification options >> available and potentially selecting the wrong ones. >> >> /matt sidor >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016, 2:37 PM Suzan Reed <su...@suzanreed.com> wrote: >> >> Apologies for getting a little hot about this issue. It’s not helpful nor >> does it assist in finding a healthy solution for all, developers and users >> alike. Let’s hope a compromise can be achieved. Having something as simple >> as road-unclassified removed and changed to road-minor may be a good idea, >> but let’s hope there is a middle way to keep all tags consistent between >> editors and new mappers happy. >> >> S >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Russell Deffner <russell.deff...@hotosm.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Suzan and all, >> >> Sorry I am not able to fully participate in this matter as I'm not much >> of an iD user (still prefer P2 for in-browser editing). But, I don't think >> any Devs in the whole OSM workflow are 'in the clouds'; most of them are >> active members of various mailing lists, etc. >> >> But, my main concern is that this discussion is on just the HOT list and >> I think iD team has their own? Probably someone can loop you into their >> discussion channel(s) so these concerns don't fall on 'deaf ears' and/or >> the 'right ears' never hear your message. Also, we should all know that the >> tagging scheme is 'loose' and I think this is more about them changing the >> 'suggested tags' versus actual tags, which I still don't typically use >> presets or the gui on potlatch, I go to the wiki if I'm not sure what tag >> to use; most are in my head :) >> >> Thanks, >> =Russ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suzan Reed [mailto:su...@suzanreed.com] >> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 2:23 PM >> To: john whelan; Richard Fairhurst >> Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users >> >> The changes to ID were clearly made without any regard to the significant >> impact it would have on tens of thousands of mappers around the world. >> Although as you state OSM developers see themselves as above consulting >> with others on the impact of their work, that is arrogance. If they want to >> walk out because they can’t be team players and develop for real people >> doing real mapping, let them go. They shouldn’t be a part of the >> organization. >> >> There is no reason thousands of ID users need to accept the dictates of a >> few developers who never gave one thought of the impact it would have on >> other people, thousands of pages of documentation, hundreds of videos, and >> all the monetary and human costs their changes would make. Yes, some of the >> changes are interesting and good, but reality needs to be inserted into the >> process and they need to know how their work impacts the mapping community >> around the world and that what they did is not good. There is a middle >> ground, and yet from what you say, they are too “in the clouds” to even >> consider it. That’s shameful. >> >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:18 AM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Apols then I was thinking purely in HOT terms. In HOT terms we map, then >> validate which I agree is something that OSM does not normally do. JOSM is >> a much better tool than iD for validating since it detects highways that >> are almost joined and catches many other errors. Many HOT projects map >> buildings, JOSM with the building_tool plugin has many fewer unsquared >> buildings than iD mappers. >> >> Also when validating I can usually tell whether the mapper has been using >> iD, JOSM mappers do not have nearly as many untagged ways or buildings >> tagged area=yes as new iD mappers. So in a HOT context moving mappers to >> JOSM is normally seen a progression since we need more validators and JOSM >> is the tool of choice for validation besides giving fewer errors. In an >> OSM context mappers simply map and to be honest it doesn't matter what tool >> they use, tags are very flexible and there is little agreement about what >> values should be used, its only in the HOT context that it really matters. >> >> I totally agree with you about consensus etc in OSM it can never be >> reached, I don't think a fork for iD for HOT is a terribly good idea >> keeping one version maintained is hard enough but at the same time for HOT >> where the turnover of new mappers is high, training and the impact of >> changing a tag is high and it sounds like this impact was not taken into >> account nor is there apparently any structure to take such things into >> account. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> On 5 March 2016 at 08:41, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: >> john whelan wrote: >> > When you get to a certain size you need a formal review process >> > before making changes and I think HOT is now at that size. >> >> Which is not at all relevant as iD is not a HOT project. >> >> OSM empowers its developers to make decisions: on openstreetmap-carto, iD, >> JOSM, osm.org, osm2pgsql, you name it. Most developers welcome feedback, >> but >> consensus cannot always be reached, as per the recent changes to >> osm-carto. >> The idea that you might impose a formal review process to tell non-HOT >> developers what to do is absolutely anathema to OSM and I think would lead >> to a mass walkout of developers. >> >> If you want a humanitarian-focused editor or just a humanitarian-focused >> set >> of presets, then you should host an instance of iD on hotosm.org. >> Otherwise, >> you have to accept that changes will be made. >> >> > Most sane people think in terms of moving mappers to JOSM eventually >> >> Nice insult. Actually http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/5/2/21/htm, >> published a >> fortnight ago, shows that the picture is more varied than you might think. >> France is 84% JOSM vs 9% Potlatch, while the UK is 47% Potlatch vs 42% >> JOSM. >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Difficulty-in-communicating-with-iD-users-tp5869083p5869115.html >> Sent from the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap (HOT) mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
