>2. Validation - either invalidate or fix. > Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own or the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be fixed in the validation step.
I think less well under half of the mapped tiles in HOT have been validated and of those that have I'd say another 20+% wouldn't meet my personal standards and 50+% wouldn't meet Jo's. I admit my personal validation standard is aimed more at making sure what is there is reasonably correct according to the project instructions. So are you suggesting gold standard validation ie JOSM plugin todo list and each building is examined carefully before squaring? Is some form of bulk squaring acceptable? On the grounds its better than nothing? If the tiles get invalidated who do we expect to come back and fix them? Remember 99% of the "unoffical" maperthon mappers will never return. In the case of projects that have many of these types of buildings which may not be attractive to validate should we just ignore the problem and hope one day someone will gold plate validate the project. It may even happen. Remember that validation is voluntary and validators can choose which projects to validate on and which to just ignore. I accept some of the big organised groups probably think they have proper training on their organised maperthons and tame validators to map their particular projects so for them the problem doesn't exist but think in terms of HOT generally, think in terms of the maperthons that take place with no experienced mappers. They exist. I understand it is not an easy question and there are very different view points but I think we need to have the discussion and attempt to reach some sort of consensus of how to get the most out of the limited resources we have rather than have individual validators make their own pragmatic decisions. One of which is delete them all and remap, its faster. Cheerio John On 14 April 2016 at 18:33, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped >> buildings would be? > > > 1. Determine the cause(s) of the poorly mapped buildings. Do we need more > helpers in MM mapathons? The last one I did, we had a number of new > mappers. Those of us helping were stretched just answering questions. Not > being able to spend time going over people work. And yes - we did teach > squaring buildings. We also recommended people bring a mouse to the > session. One of our team brought extra for people to use and I even lent > mine out. Drawing features without a mouse is difficult. We've even > suggested to Red Cross that they have a bag of mice to lend during MM > events. > > 2. Validation - either invalidate or fix. > > Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own or > the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be fixed > in the validation step. > > Best, > Clifford > > > -- > @osm_seattle > osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch >
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
