Silvia and myself validated their mapping on 1396. I think it took us the best part of a week and a couple have been seen mapping since.
Cheerio John On 9 Apr 2017 4:11 pm, "Jo" <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just wanted to mention I'm going to organize a followup meetup at one of > the universities that participated in that Belgian Mapathon on the 26th of > April. My intention is to explain mapping with JOSM, of course, but if > there are a few people that participated, who are coming back, I'll explain > what's involved in validating to them. > > Towards the end of the Mapathon I had already started doing that, but I > had only 10 of the 300 participants. > > Anyway, mostly to mention that at least I, I have not forgotten about > validation of those tasks. > > Polyglot > > 2017-04-09 17:08 GMT+02:00 Matthew Gibb <mjng...@gmail.com>: > >> Great feedback, thank you, John. >> >> This is definitely a working document so I'll begin incorporating all of >> your points (or feel free to edit, the settings are open), not to mention >> most folks have their own process for validating, so some answers may be >> slightly different, depending on who is writing it. Very good point on the >> JOSM being mentioned. There's also a working document going around with >> tips on using JOSM for validation (and mapping in general). We'll want to >> make sure any available documentation is referenced. Dale and Andrew also >> made a validation style for JOSM, which I'll include a link to. >> >> Quick feedback I think is the biggest hurdle, which is why there has been >> such a push for more documentation, so that there can be resources for >> encouraging more users to validate. >> >> I know you've led quite a few discussions on this list about validation, >> so I'll be sure to check through those as well to find a common points. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Matt >> >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:16 AM john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Comment on the validation FAQs. >>> >>> Comment one feedback, the document talks about positive feedback with >>> "great work!" citing Martin's research. Martin's work does not say that >>> and we have had the discussion here before about the subject. >>> >>> Comment two http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Tasking_Manager/Valid >>> ating_data exists I suggest a reference to it. >>> >>> Comment three nowhere does it mention the desirability of using JOSM. >>> Nothing else catches the duplicate nodes, crossing highways with no node >>> and highways that almost meet. JOSM validation hits a few more as well. >>> >>> Comment four squaring buildings. When you square them you change the >>> area and orientation. You are doing an approximation. iD is quite capable >>> of drawing a square building, if its a building only project JOSM >>> building_tool plugin is faster and accurate. JOSM can be run from a USB >>> Stick. Squaring buildings might look prettier but I don't think it has any >>> part of validation and I certainly do not think a validator should square >>> buildings with the nuclear JOSM option. (select buildings with less than a >>> certain number of nodes, subselect mapper then "q".) >>> >>> Comment five at what point do feedback messages become a nuisance? We >>> have mappers who have mapped more than a thousand tiles accurately. Are >>> you going to give them 1,000 well done messages? If the work is more than >>> ten days old its probably not worth giving feedback. If they are making a >>> consistent mistake then hopefully it will have been corrected by now and >>> you stand the chance of alienation with 20 messages pointing out the same >>> mistake on work that is a year old. That's why its important to give >>> feedback quickly. >>> >>> Comment six, given the recent very large Belgium mapathon validating >>> within a short period of time became a major challenge. Giving detailed >>> feedback to mappers who will only map once takes about three or four times >>> more time than just checking the tiles. Do you decide to validate as many >>> tiles as possible or give detailed feedback? Pros and cons? >>> >>> Comment seven most new mappers are not confident enough to mark a tile >>> done. These are the mappers you want to catch making errors so they don't >>> get set in their ways. Should they be mentioned somewhere? >>> >>> Have fun >>> >>> Cheerio John >>> >>> On 9 April 2017 at 07:55, Matthew Gibb <mjng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi John, as Pete mentioned, I think there are going to be a number of >>> features in the TM3 that will help with managing and validating projects. >>> >>> I've been putting together a Validation FAQ if anyone would like to >>> contribute: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BIbdrrSRueNd >>> xvyoYJJm10VGH-hy0BM13UlSJglgrEg/edit#heading=h.di2zopdzc88x >>> >>> We've also got a #validation channel on the HOTOSM slack group, to help >>> prompt some discussion on validation. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 4:56 AM Florian Niel <florian.n...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe there could be a button below the "Take a task at random" which >>> says "Validate a task at random" and behind this button there is an >>> algorithm which selects the most reasonable task square. >>> >>> What makes a task good for validation? >>> >>> 1) It has to be finished recently >>> 2) Tasks by this user have not been validated yet (or just few) >>> 3) The user is unexperienced >>> 4) Special importance to users whose tasks vere invalidated >>> 5) A checkbox (something like "please validate quickly") next to the >>> "Mark task as done", where mappers can somehow request quick validation >>> (because they are not sure if they have done it right). Checking this box >>> would put the task on top of this list. And when this task has been >>> validated the user should get a message. >>> >>> Another validation-related topic: >>> For me as a mapper, I wish that I would have a list of my finished tasks >>> where I see which have been validated / invalidated. It would give me a >>> boost when I see I am doing things right. >>> >>> Florian >>> >>> Am 25.03.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Pete Masters: >>> >>> Hi John, I mentioned this to Blake as feedback to the TM3 >>> consultation..... >>> >>> Pete >>> >>> On 25 Mar 2017 16:08, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Some way to spot the most recently mapped tiles that have not been >>> validated. The current activity list isn't too bad except when a mapathon >>> hits then there are more tiles than the activity list can hold. Also >>> validating takes up slots on the list. >>> >>> The reason I'm after the most recently mapped tiles is the sooner I can >>> catch a problem the fewer times it gets repeated so the fewer times it >>> needs to be corrected. >>> >>> I need the order in which they were mapped most recent first. >>> >>> Thanks John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> HOT mailing list >>> HOT@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> HOT mailing >>> listHOT@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
