[HOT] validating tiles
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
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
Very good points you brought up Dan. I feel very strongly about the #2 point about adding a statistic for validators, it does take effort to browse the tiles properly. I sometimes end up adding a few missing buildings or landuse areas if they are only a few minor missing features. Hopefully those points can be looked into & developed in the near future for the Tasking Manager. On Mar 24, 2015 9:53 PM, "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
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
Hi Daniel, This makes much sense. Do you have a github account? If so, please create an issue and copy paste your message there. Pierre On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 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 > -- - | Pierre GIRAUD - ___ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
We have already made similar propositions a few times on the Github isssues service for the Tasking manager. See the recent discussion.https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager2/issues/545 Pierre De : Denis Carriere À : Daniel Specht Cc : hot@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Mercredi 25 mars 2015 0h55 Objet : Re: [HOT] validating tiles Very good points you brought up Dan.I feel very strongly about the #2 point about adding a statistic for validators, it does take effort to browse the tiles properly. I sometimes end up adding a few missing buildings or landuse areas if they are only a few minor missing features.Hopefully those points can be looked into & developed in the near future for the Tasking Manager.On Mar 24, 2015 9:53 PM, "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
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
But on the other hand we have some mappers whom I'm confident their tiles will contain only very minor errors, and given the large number of projects that could do with mapping I'm not sure that spending time validating these is the best use of our very limited resources. If we are going to spend time validating then perhaps we should seriously think of only taking on new projects when we have the capacity to finish them within say a year. I have noticed that validating the tile in JOSM with the validate button has identified a number of issues. I've also noticed that validating quickly on a project seems to help the project roll along the feedback both helps correct mappers, they do less errors in future and keeps them motivated. The other issue is I've seen some validations when tiles are rejected for minor reasons such as the classification of a highway as a track rather than unclassified or a path was missed that led from nowhere to nowhere. These sort of validations tend not to inspire. Cheerio John On 25 March 2015 at 05:55, Pierre Béland wrote: > We have already made similar propositions a few times on the Github > isssues service for the Tasking manager. See the recent discussion. > https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager2/issues/545 > > > > Pierre > > -- > *De :* Denis Carriere > *À :* Daniel Specht > *Cc :* hot@openstreetmap.org > *Envoyé le :* Mercredi 25 mars 2015 0h55 > *Objet :* Re: [HOT] validating tiles > > Very good points you brought up Dan. > I feel very strongly about the #2 point about adding a statistic for > validators, it does take effort to browse the tiles properly. I sometimes > end up adding a few missing buildings or landuse areas if they are only a > few minor missing features. > Hopefully those points can be looked into & developed in the near future > for the Tasking Manager. > On Mar 24, 2015 9:53 PM, "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 > > ___ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
and whilst I'm on my soap box there are two other issues with tiles. The first is micro tiling where tiles without much on them are split into sixteen tiles each with perhaps one hut on them, and the other is I've seen tiles that really are completely mapped, yes I've gone through them systematically but I've had to add much less than I have when validating sometimes. I get the feeling some mappers don't feel confident enough to mark a tile as done. Cheerio John On 25 March 2015 at 07:47, john whelan wrote: > But on the other hand we have some mappers whom I'm confident their tiles > will contain only very minor errors, and given the large number of projects > that could do with mapping I'm not sure that spending time validating these > is the best use of our very limited resources. If we are going to spend > time validating then perhaps we should seriously think of only taking on > new projects when we have the capacity to finish them within say a year. > > I have noticed that validating the tile in JOSM with the validate button > has identified a number of issues. > > I've also noticed that validating quickly on a project seems to help the > project roll along the feedback both helps correct mappers, they do less > errors in future and keeps them motivated. > > The other issue is I've seen some validations when tiles are rejected for > minor reasons such as the classification of a highway as a track rather > than unclassified or a path was missed that led from nowhere to nowhere. > These sort of validations tend not to inspire. > > Cheerio John > > On 25 March 2015 at 05:55, Pierre Béland wrote: > >> We have already made similar propositions a few times on the Github >> isssues service for the Tasking manager. See the recent discussion. >> https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager2/issues/545 >> >> >> >> Pierre >> >> ---------- >> *De :* Denis Carriere >> *À :* Daniel Specht >> *Cc :* hot@openstreetmap.org >> *Envoyé le :* Mercredi 25 mars 2015 0h55 >> *Objet :* Re: [HOT] validating tiles >> >> Very good points you brought up Dan. >> I feel very strongly about the #2 point about adding a statistic for >> validators, it does take effort to browse the tiles properly. I sometimes >> end up adding a few missing buildings or landuse areas if they are only a >> few minor missing features. >> Hopefully those points can be looked into & developed in the near future >> for the Tasking Manager. >> On Mar 24, 2015 9:53 PM, "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 >> >> > ___ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
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
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
'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 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
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
"Needs another look?" maybe, both incomplete and invalid are slightly negative. I like the idea of sending someone a more positive message when their tiles have been validated, could it include the comment by the validator? Cheerio John On 25 March 2015 at 11:27, James Conkling wrote: > '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 > 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 > > ___ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
It's an interesting discussion and one that we have fairly frequently. At the mapathons we run in London, whoever is doing the training is careful to make clear that volunteers should mark squares as done once they think they are done. They are reassured that when a validator goes over their mapping, they will either validate or they will help the mapper to develop by providing pointers. They are encouraged, at that point, to go over their work. In the same vein, we have tables at mapathons where people who have been to a few Missing Maps events start to validate the other attendees' work, under the supervision of an experienced HOTty. These guys are encouraged from the outset to leave positive and instructive feedback at the point of invalidation. We are trying to find ways to teach diligence whilst inspiring confidence in the new mappers. Anecdotally, we think these measures are working, but it would great to know. I love Blake's idea to data mine the effectiveness of this! Cheers, Pete On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:36 PM, john whelan wrote: > "Needs another look?" maybe, both incomplete and invalid are slightly > negative. I like the idea of sending someone a more positive message when > their tiles have been validated, could it include the comment by the > validator? > > Cheerio John > > On 25 March 2015 at 11:27, James Conkling > wrote: > >> '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 >> 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.op
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
I wonder if this has been discussed before - and I apologized if it has - would it be a viable idea to add a slider or a percentage drop down menu for the mapper to select the amount of work that still needs to be done for each task? This can be a subjective and rough estimate from the person working on the task, but who doesn't have time to complete it. That way it would let people know which tasks can be completed quickly - e.g. in 15 minutes mapping sessions - or if they need more time. It will also add to the general stats for the project. The percentage could visually correspond to shades of orange if we want to represent that on the map. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Pete Masters wrote: > It's an interesting discussion and one that we have fairly frequently. > > At the mapathons we run in London, whoever is doing the training is careful > to make clear that volunteers should mark squares as done once they think > they are done. They are reassured that when a validator goes over their > mapping, they will either validate or they will help the mapper to develop > by providing pointers. They are encouraged, at that point, to go over their > work. > > In the same vein, we have tables at mapathons where people who have been to > a few Missing Maps events start to validate the other attendees' work, under > the supervision of an experienced HOTty. These guys are encouraged from the > outset to leave positive and instructive feedback at the point of > invalidation. > > We are trying to find ways to teach diligence whilst inspiring confidence in > the new mappers. Anecdotally, we think these measures are working, but it > would great to know. I love Blake's idea to data mine the effectiveness of > this! > > Cheers, > > Pete > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:36 PM, john whelan wrote: >> >> "Needs another look?" maybe, both incomplete and invalid are slightly >> negative. I like the idea of sending someone a more positive message when >> their tiles have been validated, could it include the comment by the >> validator? >> >> Cheerio John >> >> On 25 March 2015 at 11:27, James Conkling >> wrote: >>> >>> '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 >>> 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 e
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
And just to go off at a tangent has anyone thought about tapping into old people's homes? Some residents are mentally alert and it might help keep them amused. Not a full scale mapathon and you might even have to explain what a mouse is. Many will not have wifi, but JOSM can work off line and I understand even hold the images for a tile or two off line as well but if you can pull it off you might find five or so residents per home putting an hour a day into it and before anyone asks, my home contacts are 3,000 miles away so I'm not best placed to do this, and I suspect you'd need to talk it through with a home and someone who knows this sort of resident first on how best to approach it. Cheerio John On 25 March 2015 at 14:12, Pete Masters wrote: > It's an interesting discussion and one that we have fairly frequently. > > At the mapathons we run in London, whoever is doing the training is > careful to make clear that volunteers should mark squares as done once they > think they are done. They are reassured that when a validator goes over > their mapping, they will either validate or they will help the mapper to > develop by providing pointers. They are encouraged, at that point, to go > over their work. > > In the same vein, we have tables at mapathons where people who have been > to a few Missing Maps events start to validate the other attendees' work, > under the supervision of an experienced HOTty. These guys are encouraged > from the outset to leave positive and instructive feedback at the point of > invalidation. > > We are trying to find ways to teach diligence whilst inspiring confidence > in the new mappers. Anecdotally, we think these measures are working, but > it would great to know. I love Blake's idea to data mine the effectiveness > of this! > > Cheers, > > Pete > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:36 PM, john whelan > wrote: > >> "Needs another look?" maybe, both incomplete and invalid are slightly >> negative. I like the idea of sending someone a more positive message when >> their tiles have been validated, could it include the comment by the >> validator? >> >> Cheerio John >> >> On 25 March 2015 at 11:27, James Conkling >> wrote: >> >>> '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 >>> 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 > ma
Re: [HOT] validating tiles
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 > HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
> ___
HOT mailing list 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
