Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Heather Leson]

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 
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  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 
> 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 

Re: [HOT] iD

[Bryan Housel]

Hi Russell, Suzan,
There is not an iD specific mailing list, but I do subscribe to all of the 
mailing lists and read everything.
The best place to ask me about iD is our GitHub issue tracker:  
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD 

If iD is an important component in the work done by HOT, it would probably be a 
smart idea for some of your membership to follow our work on our Github page so 
that you are aware when we make changes to things like the captions.  If not, 
free to just drop iD as an option from your task manager and use JOSM for 
everything.  Trust me, my feelings will not be hurt.

Almost everything about iD is customizable, we made it this way specifically 
for projects like HOT that might want to customize the OSM stack and use their 
own presets, translations, imagery, wiki, taginfo documentation, etc.  

It would be very easy for HOT to host their own custom version of iD.  Several 
other organizations are already doing this, and I’d be happy to help with this 
if you have anyone in your organization that feels like putting in a few days 
of work to make this happen.

Thanks,
Bryan




> On Mar 5, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Russell Deffner  
> 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  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 

[HOT] Missing Maps French Translation Help

[Dale Kunce]

The new Missing Maps website was released last week and has a bunch of new
features including new users pages and leaderboards.

As soon as the new site was released a bunch of folks wanted to localize
and translate the site. We have a french version started and need some help
to finish it up. Please go ahead and checkout the localization branch and
update the fr.yml file and submit a pull request back to the branch.

https://github.com/MissingMaps/missingmaps.github.io/issues/135

Once we finish french we would love to have the site translated to other
languages that meet the needs of HOT and Missing Maps.

Thanks so much in advance.

Dale
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Russell Deffner]

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  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  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  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 

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Matt Sidor]

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  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 
> 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  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
> 

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Suzan Reed]

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  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  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  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 

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Russell Deffner]

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  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  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: 

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Suzan Reed]

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  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  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

Re: [HOT] small tiles

[Russell Deffner]

Hi Dan, yeah – I’ve been talking with folks and watching the ‘success rate’ of 
all the front page projects and to add some commentary – it does seem there is 
a ‘magic size’ for people to both feel like they’re getting stuff done and a 
fine balance of not too big for validators to easily go-for, but not so small 
that you are spending more time locking/pushing validate then looking at tiles.

 

It seems like roughly 1 kilometer square tiles for urban areas and 2-4 km^2 for 
rural seems to be that magic size, I see those size projects going like 
hot-cakes.  Apologies for a few of those recent Fiji projects – where it got a 
little more dense and the island narrowed/got a little funky for ‘chopping into 
projects’ I was actually more thinking about number of tiles as the projects 
beforehand seemed to be ‘magic numbered’ from about 200-300 tiles on creation.  
So, anyway – thanks for the feedback, this is where project creation becomes a 
bit more ‘art’ as you can’t just tell the TM to ‘make as many squares necessary 
to be 1 km^2’ (which to any devs out there, would be nice feature :)

 

More Fiji stuff coming, just been busy the last couple of days (and trying to 
knock out validation on the last couple);

=Russ

 

From: Daniel Specht [mailto:danspe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 7:48 PM
To: hot@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [HOT] small tiles

 

The tile size used for the Fiji projects is great for residential areas. It's a 
lot more rewarding to be able to check off so many as done. If the tiles were 
much bigger people would get discouraged or sloppy. 

 

But outside the residential areas there are a lot of tiles with no features, 
which wastes time loading tiles. I think the solution is to have bigger tiles, 
maybe twice the length, and to split the tiles which are in residential areas 
into 4 parts.


 

-- 

Dan

___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Plz guide me about my work

[Dan Joseph]

Hi Autre,
Thanks for getting involved and doing some mapping! It's great that you're
reaching out for feedback. We encourage validators on HOT tasks to provide
comments but it doesn't always happen. I took a quick look at your edits.
One thing that would improve the quality is to square your buildings. In iD
editor, after tracing a building it's one of the options in the menu that
appears on hover or you can you use the keyboard shortcut 's' (see
this animated
GIF
).
There are some great tutorial videos covering buildings and roads posted on
MissingMaps.org (http://www.missingmaps.org/contribute/#learn). Also, try
to make sure the building outlines don't connect (don't share points)
unless it's clear that's the case on the ground. Otherwise, your traced
buildings for #hotosm-project-1335 do seem to match the satellite imagery.
Thanks again and hoping you'll help out on some new tasks
.
All the best,
Dan



On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Autre Planete 
wrote:

> Greets!
> Could someone plz let me know if my previous mapping is correctly done?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Autre%20for%20Nepal
>
> Kindly excuse me in case I posted this message in the wrong forum.
> Thanks in advance
> Autre
>
> ___
> 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] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[john whelan]

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  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

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Richard Fairhurst]

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

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[john whelan]

Yes its a training issue but has anyone thought of how big a training issue
it is?  There are existing videos, screenshots, people's personal notes
many trainers have their own customized notes and training manuals.  There
are translation costs, even if its only people time.  Then you get into the
relearning issues that some people consider a major turn off.  "I've
invested my time learning this stuff and suddenly its all been wasted."
How are you going to handle videos on you tube by people who have gone off
and done something else?  In some parts of the world they still use paper
for training manuals and may not have a printer or the money to reprint.
Getting the right information into the right hands at the right time is a
logistics problem.

Then you get into isolating all the iD users from the rest of OSM, HOT
users do get messages from OSM users when they need nudging and those users
do not know the iD terms for this, that and the other.  Some messages can
be quite abrupt by the way.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are you going to change or
duplicate all these terms?

Most sane people think in terms of moving mappers to JOSM eventually.
Using different terms makes this more difficult.

Then we get into the acdemics who once a year bring out their notes for a
new class and as a method of introducing them to GIS systems do some HOT
mapping. Their notes will be incorrect.  We need the good will of these
academics.

When HOT was six people sat round a coffee table talking, this sort of
thing is minor.  The more people involved the more complex it gets and HOT
these days is very large.  The change is certainly not minor and has a very
big impact.

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.

Cheerio John

On 5 March 2016 at 05:49, Jo  wrote:

> If you'd need to relearn iD, invest some time in learning JOSM, you'll be
> glad you did. It's true that it is somewhat more userfriendly to not use
> British road classifications, but now it becomes harder to make the switch
> to JOSM, that contributors who become more involved with OSM will
> invariably (have to) make at some point.
>
> My take on this is that we should teach JOSM right from the start during
> Mapathons.
>
> But that is also due to me not being familiar with iD, so I couldn't teach
> it, if I tried. I only see the oddities like buildings that end up as
> area=yes, or that aren't rectangular, because that takes quite a bit of
> effort to do, over and over again in iD.
>
> Lately it's stuff like amenity_1=... that produces bad data.
>
> Polyglot
>
>
> 2016-03-05 8:25 GMT+01:00 Natfoot :
>
>> As an Editor that uses ID exclusively for edits I can confirm that ID has
>> changed in the past three days.  I have not made edits yet that are using
>> the new icons as I will need to relearn ID and be able to teach it at the
>> next Missing Maps meetup.
>>
>> Nathan P
>> email: natf...@gmail.com
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Suzan Reed  wrote:
>>
>>> All the tags in iD have changed.
>>>
>>> There is no longer Road or Unclassified Road. I have no idea what a
>>> “minor road” is, and it doesn’t match anything in OSM or HOT tags. Other
>>> tags have disappeared as well including Water, etc.
>>>
>>> These strange new tags need to be changed back to the ones that were in
>>> iD so it matches everything else in OSM and HOT. Who can do that?
>>>
>>> Suzan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2016, at 8:53 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Blake Girardot 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I assumed there was an "unclassified" road icon in iD as the tag is
>>> highway=unclassified, however, iD calls that a "Minor Road" but gives it
>>> the highway=unclassified k=v.
>>>
>>> iD does have an icon for "unclassified road", does that not result in  a
>>> k=v of "highway=unclassified"?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [HOT] Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Jo]

If you'd need to relearn iD, invest some time in learning JOSM, you'll be
glad you did. It's true that it is somewhat more userfriendly to not use
British road classifications, but now it becomes harder to make the switch
to JOSM, that contributors who become more involved with OSM will
invariably (have to) make at some point.

My take on this is that we should teach JOSM right from the start during
Mapathons.

But that is also due to me not being familiar with iD, so I couldn't teach
it, if I tried. I only see the oddities like buildings that end up as
area=yes, or that aren't rectangular, because that takes quite a bit of
effort to do, over and over again in iD.

Lately it's stuff like amenity_1=... that produces bad data.

Polyglot


2016-03-05 8:25 GMT+01:00 Natfoot :

> As an Editor that uses ID exclusively for edits I can confirm that ID has
> changed in the past three days.  I have not made edits yet that are using
> the new icons as I will need to relearn ID and be able to teach it at the
> next Missing Maps meetup.
>
> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Suzan Reed  wrote:
>
>> All the tags in iD have changed.
>>
>> There is no longer Road or Unclassified Road. I have no idea what a
>> “minor road” is, and it doesn’t match anything in OSM or HOT tags. Other
>> tags have disappeared as well including Water, etc.
>>
>> These strange new tags need to be changed back to the ones that were in
>> iD so it matches everything else in OSM and HOT. Who can do that?
>>
>> Suzan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2016, at 8:53 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Blake Girardot 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I assumed there was an "unclassified" road icon in iD as the tag is
>> highway=unclassified, however, iD calls that a "Minor Road" but gives it
>> the highway=unclassified k=v.
>>
>> iD does have an icon for "unclassified road", does that not result in  a
>> k=v of "highway=unclassified"?
>>
>> ___
>> 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] iD tags changed? Re: Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Richard Fairhurst]

Paul Uithol wrote:

Could you please clarify - have the underlying tags and values
themselves changed, or just their descriptions/UI?


Just the UI. It's also the name Potlatch has also given the equivalent 
preset (for years), so it's nothing new.



And yes, "unclassified" does confuse people, but it's something they'll
be exposed to and should be explained sooner or later anyway?


Editing OpenStreetMap should be open to people without the need to read 
a manual first. Let people learn gradually at their own pace. If you 
introduce people to HOT differently that's cool, but iD as deployed on 
osm.org is a general-purpose editing tool for OpenStreetMap, of which 
HOT is just one of many uses.



Don't have
a laptop at hand, but is the underlying tag value still visible in iD?


Yes.

cheers
Richard

___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] iD tags changed? Re: Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Paul Uithol]

Hi,

Could you please clarify - have the underlying tags and values themselves
changed, or just their descriptions/UI? It sounds like the latter to me
from your response. The former would be bad, the latter is something we
could/should adapt to.

And yes, "unclassified" does confuse people, but it's something they'll be
exposed to and should be explained sooner or later anyway? Don't have a
laptop at hand, but is the underlying tag value still visible in iD? I'm
hoping this has been discussed, but wouldn't a description like "Minor
(unclassified)" be an option?

Best,
Paul
On Mar 5, 2016 12:41 PM, "Richard Fairhurst"  wrote:

> Suzan Reed wrote:
> > Who changed the tags? How do we get them changed back
> > so they match JOSM and all the information about OSM and HOT?
> > [...]
> > The new tags (minor road etc.) do not match any of the Wikis, learning
> > tools in HOT or OSM.
>
> Oh yes they do.
>
> highway=unclassified _means_ a minor road. It has always meant a minor
> road.
> Ever since the highway tagging scheme was invented by Andy Robinson in
> 2006.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
>"minor roads of a lower classification than tertiary"
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>"The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads"
>
> The word "unclassified" comes from the British road system, as do the other
> values, "motorway", "trunk", "primary" and "secondary". The choice of word
> was unfortunate in retrospect: newcomers often think that it means "a road
> where I don't know the classification" (for which the correct tag is
> highway=road), and I believe this has recently been observed at Missing
> Maps
> events. Ten years on it's not realistic to change the raw tag value, but
> that's why user-friendly editors such as iD and Potlatch have descriptive
> presets rather than simply presenting raw tags.
>
> If iD moving to a more descriptive preset name has made HOT documentation
> out-of-date, you need to change the HOT documentation. Of course, iD is
> open
> source so you always have the alternative of hosting a forked version as
> well.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Difficulty-in-communicating-with-iD-users-tp5869083p5869103.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

Re: [HOT] iD tags changed? Re: Difficulty in communicating with iD users

[Richard Fairhurst]

Suzan Reed wrote:
> Who changed the tags? How do we get them changed back 
> so they match JOSM and all the information about OSM and HOT?
> [...]
> The new tags (minor road etc.) do not match any of the Wikis, learning
> tools in HOT or OSM. 

Oh yes they do.

highway=unclassified _means_ a minor road. It has always meant a minor road.
Ever since the highway tagging scheme was invented by Andy Robinson in 2006.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
   "minor roads of a lower classification than tertiary"

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
   "The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads"

The word "unclassified" comes from the British road system, as do the other
values, "motorway", "trunk", "primary" and "secondary". The choice of word
was unfortunate in retrospect: newcomers often think that it means "a road
where I don't know the classification" (for which the correct tag is
highway=road), and I believe this has recently been observed at Missing Maps
events. Ten years on it's not realistic to change the raw tag value, but
that's why user-friendly editors such as iD and Potlatch have descriptive
presets rather than simply presenting raw tags.

If iD moving to a more descriptive preset name has made HOT documentation
out-of-date, you need to change the HOT documentation. Of course, iD is open
source so you always have the alternative of hosting a forked version as
well.

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Difficulty-in-communicating-with-iD-users-tp5869083p5869103.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