date:20160414

>2. Validation - either invalidate or fix.

>
Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own or
the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be fixed
in the validation step.

I think less well under half of the mapped tiles in HOT have been
validated and of those that have I'd say another 20+% wouldn't meet my
personal standards and 50+% wouldn't meet Jo's.  I admit my personal
validation standard is aimed more at making sure what is there is
reasonably correct according to the project instructions.

 So are you suggesting gold standard validation ie JOSM plugin todo list
and each building is examined carefully before squaring?

Is some form of bulk squaring acceptable?  On the grounds its better than
nothing?

If the tiles get invalidated who do we expect to come back and fix them?
Remember 99% of the "unoffical" maperthon mappers will never return.

In the case of projects that have many of these types of buildings which
may not be attractive to validate should we just ignore the problem and
hope one day someone will gold plate validate the project.  It may even
happen.

Remember that validation is voluntary and validators can choose which
projects to validate on and which to just ignore.

I accept some of the big organised groups probably think they have proper
training on their organised maperthons and tame validators to map their
particular projects so for them the problem doesn't exist but think in
terms of HOT generally, think in terms of the maperthons that take place
with no experienced mappers.  They exist.

I understand it is not an easy question and there are very different view
points but I think we need to have the discussion and attempt to reach some
sort of consensus of how to get the most out of the limited resources we
have rather than have individual validators make their own pragmatic
decisions.  One of which is delete them all and remap, its faster.

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 18:33, Clifford Snow  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped
>> buildings would be?
>
>
> 1. Determine the cause(s) of the poorly mapped buildings. Do we need more
> helpers in MM mapathons? The last one I did, we had a number of new
> mappers. Those of us helping were stretched just answering questions. Not
> being able to spend time going over people work. And yes - we did teach
> squaring buildings. We also recommended people bring a mouse to the
> session. One of our team brought extra for people to use and I even lent
> mine out. Drawing features without a mouse is difficult. We've even
> suggested to Red Cross that they have a bag of mice to lend during MM
> events.
>
> 2. Validation - either invalidate or fix.
>
> Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own or
> the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be fixed
> in the validation step.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

2016-04-14 Thread Clifford Snow

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped
> buildings would be?

1. Determine the cause(s) of the poorly mapped buildings. Do we need more
helpers in MM mapathons? The last one I did, we had a number of new
mappers. Those of us helping were stretched just answering questions. Not
being able to spend time going over people work. And yes - we did teach
squaring buildings. We also recommended people bring a mouse to the
session. One of our team brought extra for people to use and I even lent
mine out. Drawing features without a mouse is difficult. We've even
suggested to Red Cross that they have a bag of mice to lend during MM
events.

2. Validation - either invalidate or fix.

Step 1 is the preferable route but if people are working on their own or
the turnout makes one on one assistance impossible, then it should be fixed
in the validation step.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

>We care that they reflect the structure on the ground. I've mapped many
buildings that are not square. But if we are sending people into the field
to deliver aid looking for a triangle like building when the actual
building is a rectangle, we've wasted their time.

So your suggestion on how to deal with the existing poorly mapped buildings
would be?

Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 17:50, Clifford Snow  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:28 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> It is a data quality issue but do we even care if they are unsquared or
>> not?
>>
>
> We care that they reflect the structure on the ground. I've mapped many
> buildings that are not square. But if we are sending people into the field
> to deliver aid looking for a triangle like building when the actual
> building is a rectangle, we've wasted their time.
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

For 95% of the buildings JOSM building_tool plugin does a very nice job
very quickly.  Three clicks and you're done.

The training material for HOT and learnOSM has improved enormously since
Nepal.

I’d probably split the world into three.  Mappers who started in OSM or who
have built up experience in OSM and know where map features is.
Individuals mapping by themselves, they have to read the instructions to
get started.  These I really don’t mind spending the time giving feedback
to, they’re likely to come back and map again.  Then we get the maperthons.

People who organise maperthons and OSM have different objectives.  OSM is
more or less map accurately following the guidelines in map features.  I
say more or less because there is a very wide range of opinion within OSM
on every matter under the sun.

Maperthons group themselves into two groups.  The first is organised often
by a group such as MSF and they have training and handouts plus experienced
mappers around to assist new mappers.  Quite often they get returning
mappers and they can be nudged towards JOSM.  They are concerned both with
mapping, building community (drinking coffee together) and spreading the
word on how wonderful MSF or whomever it is running the show is.  If I
notice problems when validating these not a big deal its comment the mapper
and bug the project manager with a bit of feedback.  Often they’ll have
simplified projects such as just map the highways and nothing else together
with simplified instructions.  If you accept that 60% of the mappers will
only map the once then iD takes less time to get started than installing
JOSM.

The second are much more difficult.  These often run by what I call social
groups of one type or another, short attention spans, real men don’t need
instructions.  If you’re lucky they’ll have a handout, if not well anything
goes and next week we’ll do something entirely different.  If you
invalidate so what, 99% won’t be back.  You’re just left with a mess.  A
group descended on a project I was watching as a validator recently.  I
wanted to contact the organiser as it was obvious they had no training at
all but no one knew who they were.  The project manager certainly didn’t
and that’s where the question comes from how do we handle these situations?

One tile I added ninety two settlements and about fifty highways to a tile
when validating, the second tile by the same mapper just got invalidated
when I saw four large settlements missed at the first glance.  In the
building projects the numbers are much higher.  It’s not unusual to see a
hundred buildings on a tile and many will not be square, I still see quite
a few area=yes rather than building=yes although that is improving.

The other problem is validation.  Mappers who haven’t completed a single
tile validating.  Go in behind them and you see all the unsquared
buildings, crossing highways etc.

Prevention is usually cheaper than remedial work.  I have great hopes for
the iD building plugin, but in the mean time the question remains what to
do about the existing unsquared buildings?

Whilst going in with the JOSM todo list plugin and examining every building
by a particular mapper is the ideal solution given the numbers involved do
we accept select the buildings by a mapper on a tile then hit the square
button?

It is a data quality issue but do we even care if they are unsquared or not?

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 16:25, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
> and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
> they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
> doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
> behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
> results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a problem
> with how they're being instructed. Both iD and JOSM would have squared some
> of them with no problems, so switching editors or other technical solutions
> won't help here.
>
> If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a second
> problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM will come up
> with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
>
> ___
> 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] Squared buildings

2016-04-14 Thread Clifford Snow

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Dale Kunce  wrote:

> I agree with Mike. This is part training, which I think we all strive to
> do a good job on. I know all the Missing Maps one stress the need to square
> buildings. It's frustrating to watch new mappers try and square stuff to
> not have it work. Simply saying they weren't trained enough is not a good
> enough answer and is short sighted for the vast majority of new mappers.


+1

My old quality training would indicate that we have a system problem.


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

I agree with Mike. This is part training, which I think we all strive to do
a good job on. I know all the Missing Maps one stress the need to square
buildings. It's frustrating to watch new mappers try and square stuff to
not have it work. Simply saying they weren't trained enough is not a good
enough answer and is short sighted for the vast majority of new mappers.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:58 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
>> and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
>> they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
>> doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
>> behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
>> results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>>
>> They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a problem
>> with how they're being instructed.
>>
> They were given 20 minutes of instruction / demonstration on a projector
> in a classroom, as well as provided with written instructions.  I am
> certainly open to - and always attempting to - improve my instruction.  But
> I feel the instruction at this event was pretty good. In any event, having
> to explain, "the 's' key will only work if you are reasonably close and
> there is no error message" is just one more thing to explain and for the
> new mappers to remember.
>
> These are not the exact buildings as those were fixed during the mapathon
> (sorry for the confusion), but at this mapathon I did walk over to more
> than one mapper and watch them square a building with the 's' key, have
> nothing happen, and then move on.  Most of the buildings they had drawn
> were not square.  I pointed out the error and they did fix their buildings.
> There should at least be an error message, something like "Failed to square
> building, please redraw with angles 90 +/- 12 degrees"
>
>>
>>
>> If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a
>> second problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM will
>> come up with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
>>
> JOSM will make the change, it may not match the imagery, but it will be
> obvious that something has changed, hopefully prompting the user to make
> adjustments and try again.
>
>>
>>
>
>> Mike
> ___
> 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] Squared buildings

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
> and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
> they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
> doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
> behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
> results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a problem
> with how they're being instructed.
>
They were given 20 minutes of instruction / demonstration on a projector in
a classroom, as well as provided with written instructions.  I am certainly
open to - and always attempting to - improve my instruction.  But I feel
the instruction at this event was pretty good. In any event, having to
explain, "the 's' key will only work if you are reasonably close and there
is no error message" is just one more thing to explain and for the new
mappers to remember.

These are not the exact buildings as those were fixed during the mapathon
(sorry for the confusion), but at this mapathon I did walk over to more
than one mapper and watch them square a building with the 's' key, have
nothing happen, and then move on.  Most of the buildings they had drawn
were not square.  I pointed out the error and they did fix their buildings.
There should at least be an error message, something like "Failed to square
building, please redraw with angles 90 +/- 12 degrees"

>
>
> If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a second
> problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM will come up
> with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
>
JOSM will make the change, it may not match the imagery, but it will be
obvious that something has changed, hopefully prompting the user to make
adjustments and try again.

>
>

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

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

2016-04-14 Thread Paul Norman


On 4/14/2016 1:16 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 
's' and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how 
that they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever 
asked me "why doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the 
squaring happens behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below 
are some of the results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.

Inline image 1


They're not attempting to square the buildings, which indicates a 
problem with how they're being instructed. Both iD and JOSM would have 
squared some of them with no problems, so switching editors or other 
technical solutions won't help here.


If all of those buildings have square corners in reality, there's a 
second problem that some are so crudely drawn that neither iD or JOSM 
will come up with a sensible result when attempting to do so.
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Bryan Housel 
wrote:

> The threshold for squaring angles in iD is currently set to within +/-12
> degrees of right or straight.  This number was just chosen because it
> “feels” right, and still allows for buildings to have 15 degree angles and
> circular sections.
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/1902
>
Thanks for the info, and again, thanks for creating the iD Editor.  It
really is an amazing tool.  The stuff we are talking about here are just
minor suggested tweaks.  Regarding the 12 degree limit, If a building
doesn't have square corners in reality (e.g. round or buildings with "15
degree angles") why would one ask any editor (iD, JOSM, etc.)  to square
them? I think JOSM will square almost anything. Sometimes the result isn't
what you want, but that is obvious as the way is changed by the tool -
often dramatically.

>
>
> My advice for tracing buildings with better precision is to 1. use a mouse
> and 2. zoom in more.   People very new to mapping often forget that zooming
> in makes it much easier to trace in detail.
>
Those are both things that I already tell new mappers. But they type 's'
and think they have made a square building.  We can talk about how that
they should notice that nothing changed, but no one has ever asked me "why
doesn't the 's' key work?" Perhaps they think that the squaring happens
behind the scene and isn't visible? Who knows. Below are some of the
results (blue buildings) from a recent mapathon.
[image: Inline image 1]

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

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

2016-04-14 Thread Bryan Housel

The threshold for squaring angles in iD is currently set to within +/-12 
degrees of right or straight.  This number was just chosen because it “feels” 
right, and still allows for buildings to have 15 degree angles and circular 
sections.
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/1902 


The squaring algorithm is borrowed from Potlatch, and has some known odd edge 
cases that I would like to improve when I have time for it.
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2472 



My advice for tracing buildings with better precision is to 1. use a mouse and 
2. zoom in more.   People very new to mapping often forget that zooming in 
makes it much easier to trace in detail.


Thanks, Bryan



> Bryan, Thanks for your great work on the iD Editor.  The new mappers whom I 
> have introduced to OSM through mapathons often comment about how easy the 
> process is!
> 
> A related issue with regards to the current squaring functionality is that iD 
> apparently will only square a building if it is already close to being 
> square. During mapathons we instruct mappers to draw the building and then 
> hit 's' to square.  Most of them follow directions, but the result is often 
> buildings that are not square because the tool didn't do anything, and didn't 
> warn the user that it wasn't doing anything. We now try to explain that they 
> have to check to make sure the tool did something, and if not, attempt to 
> redraw the building and click 's' again but that is more details for them 
> to handle, remember and execute.
> 
> Mike

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

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

In JOSM you can search "building nodes:-7" or less which screens out the
huts.  I don't especially like doing it in a mass way but when you're met
with 200 unsquared buildings you need to tackle it in some way.  You can
further refine it by mapper name before hitting the q button.

Either prevention which is the ideal or we need to think about what to do.
At the moment we have many many buildings which are not squared.  Perhaps
someone has a tool they could use to count how many.  The options for
validators are avoid projects that map buildings.  It's easy and quick for
validators to do this from their point of view.

The validators can do an individual correction on each building, I don't
think we have enough validators to do this.  Quality is also an issue, I
recently sampled part of a fully validated building project and on the
sample I looked at there were 600+ errors found in JOSM validation, 200+
crossing buildings, multiple crossing ways etc.  Two validators names I
recognised their tiles seemed fine but some names validating I didn't and I
suspect that's where the errors were located.

Bulk squaring is an option, the other option is do nothing.  The buildings
are roughly the right size in the right place.

Which was why the original question was is squaring buildings essential?

The new building tool for iD sounds an excellent way to prevent the problem
and has my full support.

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 10:06, Severin Menard  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This would be IMHO an horrible practice, for the complex buildings skilled
> mappers took the time to map + basically all the round huts.
> As a common OSM rule is not to tag for the rendering, a new one should be
> not to distord the data because of the shortcomings of an editing tool. ID
> should propose a building tool or automatically propose to square the
> buildings to anyone having drawn a surface and tag it as a building.
> Basically it is IMHO a few hours of code vs tons of hours for validators to
> clean the crappy data. I had a brief discussion about this with someone
> from Mapbox during the Nepal activation, when it was obvious the higher
> proportion of new mappers was producing data with lower quality than usual
> during activations. People from Mapbox, please consider to improve iD in
> this way.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Severin
> Le 14 avr. 2016 11:44, "john whelan"  a écrit :
>
>> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
>> the validators.
>>
>> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
>> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools
>>> plugin to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>>
 JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an
 iD power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
 rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
 of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
 worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
 square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
 would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
 thankless and tedious task.

 Cheers!
 Suzan

 On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:

 I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
 buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
 buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
 part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.

 On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
 If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
 you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

 Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way
 at 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
 shapes using this method.

 One has to know the tool one is working with.

 When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them
 (over and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of
 squaring the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's
 extrude tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

 I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
 those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
 hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> Thanks Dale, I’m hoping to get this orthogonal drawing tool merged
> sometime next month.
>
> Being able to draw square buildings quickly in iD is a cool feature, but
> not as high priority as other things that we have been working on.
> Definitely take a look through the iD changelog at what we’ve been able to
> ship in the last few months, I’m really proud of the work done by our
> mostly volunteer contributors.
>
> Some points:
> - The squareness of buildings is not very important for rescue workers or
> other HOT partners.
> - Features can be squared or retagged very efficiently in JOSM.
> - When you see features drawn imprecisely in iD, it’s probably safe to
> assume that the user is using a laptop trackpad (i.e. no mouse), or worse,
> using a touch input device like a tablet.  Improving iD support for touch
> and pen devices is also high on my priority list.
>
> Bryan, Thanks for your great work on the iD Editor.  The new mappers whom
I have introduced to OSM through mapathons often comment about how easy the
process is!

A related issue with regards to the current squaring functionality is that
iD apparently will only square a building if it is already close to being
square. During mapathons we instruct mappers to draw the building and then
hit 's' to square.  Most of them follow directions, but the result is often
buildings that are not square because the tool didn't do anything, and
didn't warn the user that it wasn't doing anything. We now try to explain
that they have to check to make sure the tool did something, and if not,
attempt to redraw the building and click 's' again but that is more
details for them to handle, remember and execute.

Mike

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

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

+1 Mike. The need to draw square buildings is really a check to have new
mappers draw more *accurate* buildings.


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM,  wrote:
>
>>
>> Are non squared building really a big deal, apart from visually? Can we
>> not live at least initially with building as traced?
>>
> If the angles are 90+/- some little bit I don't think it would matter.
> The problem is that once you remove the requirement for squaring some
> (usually very new) mappers will draw grossly distorted buildings.  These
> are so visually unappealing as to reduce the usefulness and trustworthiness
>  of the map IMHO.
>
>  Mike
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>


-- 
sent from my mobile device

Dale Kunce
http://normalhabit.com
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM,  wrote:

>
> Are non squared building really a big deal, apart from visually? Can we
> not live at least initially with building as traced?
>
If the angles are 90+/- some little bit I don't think it would matter.  The
problem is that once you remove the requirement for squaring some (usually
very new) mappers will draw grossly distorted buildings.  These are so
visually unappealing as to reduce the usefulness and trustworthiness  of
the map IMHO.

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

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

2016-04-14 Thread Bryan Housel

Thanks Dale, I’m hoping to get this orthogonal drawing tool merged sometime 
next month.

Being able to draw square buildings quickly in iD is a cool feature, but not as 
high priority as other things that we have been working on.  Definitely take a 
look through the iD changelog at what we’ve been able to ship in the last few 
months, I’m really proud of the work done by our mostly volunteer contributors.

Some points:
- The squareness of buildings is not very important for rescue workers or other 
HOT partners.
- Features can be squared or retagged very efficiently in JOSM.
- When you see features drawn imprecisely in iD, it’s probably safe to assume 
that the user is using a laptop trackpad (i.e. no mouse), or worse, using a 
touch input device like a tablet.  Improving iD support for touch and pen 
devices is also high on my priority list.

Bryan





> On Apr 14, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Dale Kunce  wrote:
> 
> Just to add to this conversation a lot of effort has already gone into a 
> building tool for iD. 
> 
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/2699 
> 
> 
> It looks like it hasn't been worked on for a while and needs someone to pick 
> it back up.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Pete Masters  > wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
>  
> 
> My feeling would be that it needs to be invalidated. If I am managing a 
> project and I see invalidated squares, I tend to check out what the problem 
> is and sometimes get in touch with the mapper through their osm profile to 
> chat about what they are doing. I agree that invalidating should be kept as a 
> last resort and fixing up + general positive encouragement works better, but 
> if someone is repeatedly making the same mistake, an invalidated square is 
> probably helpful.
> 
>  
> 
> Just to make clear, this is just my personal opinion as someone that manages 
> a large amount of TM projects…
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Pete
> 
>  
> 
> Pete Masters 
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator 
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518 
> skype: pedrito1414
> 
> twitter: @pedrito1414 
> 
> @theMissingMaps 
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject 
>  
> 
> missingmaps.org 
> msf.org.uk 
>  
> 
> From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com 
> ] 
> Sent: 14 April 2016 13:10
> To: Pete Masters
> Cc: Jo Hannes; hot@openstreetmap.org 
> 
> Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you Pete.
> 
> Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking how 
> to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500 
> unsquared buildings.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Cheerio John
> 
>  
> 
> On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters  > wrote:
> 
> From my side, I would support that proposal, John…
> 
>  
> 
> Pete
> 
>  
> 
> Pete Masters 
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator 
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518 
> skype: pedrito1414
> 
> twitter: @pedrito1414 
> 
> @theMissingMaps 
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject 
>  
> 
> missingmaps.org 
> msf.org.uk 
>  
> 
> From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com 
> ] 
> Sent: 14 April 2016 12:42
> To: Jo Hannes
> Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
> 
>  
> 
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for the 
> validators.
> 
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and 
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
> 
> Thanks John
> 
>  
> 
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  > wrote:
> 
> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin to 
> iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
> 
>  
> 
> Jo
> 
>  
> 
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed  >:
> 
> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD 
> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once rather 
> than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all of them 
> and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing worked. 
> Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then square 
> all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It would be 
> quite useful.

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

Hi Sev, apologies - I posted that last message before I saw yours - it got
delayed for some reason...

I think I should expand a little on what I meant. I use JOSM to select
buildings for squaring at the end of validating a square. If there are
circular huts or complicated (but well-mapped) buildings, then I either do
it manually or deselect these before squaring. I would not suggest that
every validator select all buildings and hit Q at the beginning of
validating a task.

>From what I have seen, apart from those that validate by mistake (which I
do realise happens), most validators are very careful with the data.

Pete

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Severin Menard 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This would be IMHO an horrible practice, for the complex buildings skilled
> mappers took the time to map + basically all the round huts.
> As a common OSM rule is not to tag for the rendering, a new one should be
> not to distord the data because of the shortcomings of an editing tool. ID
> should propose a building tool or automatically propose to square the
> buildings to anyone having drawn a surface and tag it as a building.
> Basically it is IMHO a few hours of code vs tons of hours for validators to
> clean the crappy data. I had a brief discussion about this with someone
> from Mapbox during the Nepal activation, when it was obvious the higher
> proportion of new mappers was producing data with lower quality than usual
> during activations. People from Mapbox, please consider to improve iD in
> this way.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Severin
> Le 14 avr. 2016 11:44, "john whelan"  a écrit :
>
>> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
>> the validators.
>>
>> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
>> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools
>>> plugin to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>>
 JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an
 iD power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
 rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
 of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
 worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
 square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
 would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
 thankless and tedious task.

 Cheers!
 Suzan

 On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:

 I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
 buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
 buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
 part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.

 On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
 If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
 you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

 Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way
 at 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
 shapes using this method.

 One has to know the tool one is working with.

 When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them
 (over and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of
 squaring the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's
 extrude tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

 I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
 those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
 hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
 unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
 the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
 as a validator.

 I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
 validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
 screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
 effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
 users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
 power tool, but with iD instead.

 Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
 advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
 at getting

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

Just to add to this conversation a lot of effort has already gone into a
building tool for iD.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/2699

It looks like it hasn't been worked on for a while and needs someone to
pick it back up.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Pete Masters 
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> My feeling would be that it needs to be invalidated. If I am managing a
> project and I see invalidated squares, I tend to check out what the problem
> is and sometimes get in touch with the mapper through their osm profile to
> chat about what they are doing. I agree that invalidating should be kept as
> a last resort and fixing up + general positive encouragement works better,
> but if someone is repeatedly making the same mistake, an invalidated square
> is probably helpful.
>
>
>
> Just to make clear, this is just my personal opinion as someone that
> manages a large amount of TM projects…
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> *Pete Masters*
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518
>
> skype: pedrito1414
>
> twitter: @pedrito1414 
>
>
> @theMissingMaps 
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject
> 
>
>
>
> missingmaps.org 
>
> msf.org.uk 
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 13:10
> *To:* Pete Masters
> *Cc:* Jo Hannes; hot@openstreetmap.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
>
>
>
> Thank you Pete.
>
> Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking
> how to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500
> unsquared buildings.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters 
> wrote:
>
> From my side, I would support that proposal, John…
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> *Pete Masters*
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518
>
> skype: pedrito1414
>
> twitter: @pedrito1414 
>
>
> @theMissingMaps 
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject
> 
>
>
>
> missingmaps.org 
>
> msf.org.uk 
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 12:42
> *To:* Jo Hannes
> *Cc:* hot@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
>
>
>
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
>
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>
> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
>
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>
> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> thankless and tedious task.
>
> Cheers!
> Suzan
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>
> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings
> in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings
> of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a
> validation workflow and could even be automated.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you
> can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>
> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
> shapes using this method.
>
> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>
> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>
> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

2016-04-14 Thread me


Are non squared building really a big deal, apart from visually? Can we
not live at least initially with building as traced?

Cheers
Chris 

On 14/04/16 at 07:42am, john whelan wrote:
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
> 
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
> 
> Thanks John
> 
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
> 
> > It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> > to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
> >
> > Jo
> >
> > 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> >
> >> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
> >> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> >> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
> >> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
> >> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
> >> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
> >> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> >> thankless and tedious task.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Suzan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
> >>
> >> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
> >> buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
> >> buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
> >> part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
> >> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
> >> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
> >>
> >> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> >> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
> >> shapes using this method.
> >>
> >> One has to know the tool one is working with.
> >>
> >> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
> >> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
> >> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> >> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
> >>
> >> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> >> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
> >> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
> >> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
> >> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
> >> as a validator.
> >>
> >> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
> >> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
> >> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
> >> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
> >> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
> >> power tool, but with iD instead.
> >>
> >> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
> >> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
> >> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
> >> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
> >> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
> >> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
> >>
> >> Polyglot
> >>
> >> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> >> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
> >> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
> >>
> >> Just a suggestion!
> >>
> >> Suzan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
> >> wrote:
> >> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
> >> they weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
> >> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
> >> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
> >> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
> >> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
> >>
> >> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
> >> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
> >> do we get squared buildings?
> >>
> >> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and

Re: [HOT] 7M Earthquake in Myanmar

Thanks for these links, JG... LastQuake is very interesting...

Pete

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Jean-Guilhem Cailton 
wrote:

> Hi Pratik,
>
> Here is a map of testimonies on how this earthquake was felt:
> https://twitter.com/LastQuake/status/720259858696523778
> http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=500458#testimonies
> (You can follow https://twitter.com/LastQuake for updates).
>
> Here is USGS page about it:
> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20005hqz
>
> Earthquake-report page:
>
> http://earthquake-report.com/2016/04/13/very-strong-earthquake-myanmar-on-april-13-2016/
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jean-Guilhem
>
>
> Le 13/04/2016 17:28, Pratik Gautam a écrit :
>
> Hi HOT,
>
> There was a 7M earthquake in Myanmar an hour ago. The shaking was felt
> here in Kathmandu too. Any updates on the situation in Myanmar and
> surrounding?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> *Pratik Gautam* || UI/UX Engineer, Full-stack Developer || Kathmandu
> Living Labs
> www.kathmandulivinglabs.org
> Twitter: @gautam_pratik 
>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing 
> listHOT@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
>
> --
> "Je pense, avec Pascal, que le zèle est étrange « qui s'irrite contre ceux
> qui accusent des fautes publiques, et non pas contre ceux qui les
> commettent »." Marc Bloch
> "I think, with Pascal, that it is a strange zeal « which chafes against
> those who accuse public faults, and not against those who commit them »."
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>


-- 
*Pete Masters*
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
+44 7921 781 518

missingmaps.org 

*@pedrito1414* 
*@theMissingMaps* 
*facebook.com/MissingMapsProject*

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

Re: [HOT] 7M Earthquake in Myanmar

2016-04-14 Thread Jean-Guilhem Cailton

Hi Pratik,

Here is a map of testimonies on how this earthquake was felt:
https://twitter.com/LastQuake/status/720259858696523778
http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=500458#testimonies
(You can follow https://twitter.com/LastQuake for updates).

Here is USGS page about it:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20005hqz

Earthquake-report page:
http://earthquake-report.com/2016/04/13/very-strong-earthquake-myanmar-on-april-13-2016/

Best wishes,

Jean-Guilhem


Le 13/04/2016 17:28, Pratik Gautam a écrit :
> Hi HOT,
>
> There was a 7M earthquake in Myanmar an hour ago. The shaking was felt
> here in Kathmandu too. Any updates on the situation in Myanmar and
> surrounding?
>
> Thanks
>
> -- 
> *Pratik Gautam* || UI/UX Engineer, Full-stack Developer || Kathmandu
> Living Labs
> www.kathmandulivinglabs.org 
> Twitter: @gautam_pratik 
>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


-- 
"Je pense, avec Pascal, que le zèle est étrange « qui s'irrite contre
ceux qui accusent des fautes publiques, et non pas contre ceux qui les
commettent »." Marc Bloch
"I think, with Pascal, that it is a strange zeal « which chafes against
those who accuse public faults, and not against those who commit them »."
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

Hi John,

My feeling would be that it needs to be invalidated. If I am managing a project 
and I see invalidated squares, I tend to check out what the problem is and 
sometimes get in touch with the mapper through their osm profile to chat about 
what they are doing. I agree that invalidating should be kept as a last resort 
and fixing up + general positive encouragement works better, but if someone is 
repeatedly making the same mistake, an invalidated square is probably helpful.

Just to make clear, this is just my personal opinion as someone that manages a 
large amount of TM projects…

Cheers,

Pete

Pete Masters
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
MSF UK
phone: +44 7921 781 518
skype: pedrito1414
twitter: @pedrito1414

@theMissingMaps
facebook.com/MissingMapsProject

missingmaps.org
msf.org.uk

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 April 2016 13:10
To: Pete Masters
Cc: Jo Hannes; hot@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

Thank you Pete.
Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking how 
to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500 
unsquared buildings.
Thanks

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters 
> wrote:
From my side, I would support that proposal, John…

Pete

Pete Masters
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
MSF UK
phone: +44 7921 781 518
skype: pedrito1414
twitter: @pedrito1414

@theMissingMaps
facebook.com/MissingMapsProject

missingmaps.org
msf.org.uk

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 April 2016 12:42
To: Jo Hannes
Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for the 
validators.
Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and 
squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo > 
wrote:
It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin to 
iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.

Jo

2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed 
>:
JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD power 
user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once rather than one 
at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all of them and then 
trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing worked. Maybe the iD 
team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then square all their 
buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It would be quite useful. 
Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a thankless and tedious task.

Cheers!
Suzan

On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan 
> wrote:

I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings in 
JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings of 
course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a 
validation workflow and could even be automated.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo 
> wrote:
If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you can 
start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at 15 
degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric shapes 
using this method.

One has to know the tool one is working with.

When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over and 
over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring the 
rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude tool 
easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all those 
buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q] hundreds of 
times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly unsquared buildings. 
Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to the user and validate the 
tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out as a validator.

I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to validate 
their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating screencasts and posting 
a link to it in the comment field. This was rather effective, but it still

Re: [HOT] How to become a validator (a suggestion)

2016-04-14 Thread graham

Hi John,

I guess that there is a clear point that you
mentioned:"a validator's role is more to ensure that the major requirements of the project are met and guidelines followed."

The issue of the huts size is a tricky one, and as you say, it depends on how quickly the maps are needed by the relief agencies. For simply the number of huts,inaccurate sizes may be acceptable
for a fast
delivery but if populations are to be estimated from the size of the huts, data
would then
been lost. For the validator to either invalidate or remap, is problem, but I guess that this relies on the mapper understanding the task descriptions. Should not the task description explicitly say
something like "correct size and shape of the dwellings to be
interpreted", for example. The other issue here is the scale at which the images are interpreted. If someone maps at a too smaller scale (perhaps for a fast delivery), then potential accuracy could be lost.

Thanks for highlighting these two links:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features

Validating as the project goes along from your point of view seems the good way. This is particularly
relevant with mentoring, and
valuable feed back to mappers at the time. Without feedback, new mapper might lose interest, as they want to know if they have done a good job or not, or if they have a question, they need an answer. As you say, this also gets the projects done faster.

Getting more validators, you suggest some form of recognition, this is whyI thought for that "badge" idea. Still, perhaps someone else can think of a better idea.
My final idea might be, if the
HOT team knew of interested and capable validators, perhaps they could invite them to support some projects
as
validators. Being asked for support due to one's skills, is often a reward in itself.

Thanks for your views and ideas on this subject, it has opened my eyes to the
issues and challenges of validating, as well as other issues of mapping in
general.

Regards,

Graham

On 6/4/2016 19:55, john whelan wrote:
I tend to think in shades of grey rather than black and white. In OSM
there are different mappers, each mapper interprets things slightly
differently so two mappers will rarely give exactly the same result
with the same inputs.

For example one might like to add large buildings, the other will
ignore them. Both are correct but are different interpretations.
Which to my mind means a validator's role is more to ensure that the
major requirements of the project are met and guidelines followed.

One difficulty is the size of huts. For many mappers c and
v is a quick way to map these. However there are ways to analyse
the size of the hut then estimate how many people are living in it.
Do we expect validators to check the size of the hut mapped is the
same as the size in the image? Then do we invalidate or remap?

A particular project may have a deadline to meet, NGO staff flying out
for example. In which case they may wish to reduce the information
requested to the bare essential minimum in order to get the project
completed before the deadline. However many NGOs etc will make use of
the map at some point in time in the future so additional information
may be useful and in any event there will be some economic advantages
to the locals in having the area mapped.

We use different standards for mapping in different parts of the world
and whilst local knowledge helps it is not essential for HOT mapping.
What is essential is following the local agreed standards ie
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa and some very
experienced mappers may not be aware of them.

JOSM / iD / Potlatch / OSMand amongst others are all valid methods for
entering map data. JOSM does some validation which catches a fair
number of basic errors before uploading and its building plugin is
unbeaten for quickly and accurately drawing in buildings. It is my
editor of choice. However it needs to be installed and that includes
JAVA. JAVA has been listed in the past as being a security hole by US
government so for some corporate machines installing it is not an
option. Also there can be some issues with Apple computers and JAVA.
Additionally installing it is more complex than just opening up a
browser and using iD. So in the same way that some people freeze when
asked to add two numbers together so some have problems even thinking
about installing JOSM. JOSM is also very rich and I don’t use all its
features so when you train with JOSM you need to train people just to
use the features they need. If its just highways and settlements
these are fairly minimal. It does have the advantage of being able to
tag anything so you can point them back to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features which helps with
consistency and standard ways of tagging.

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

2016-04-14 Thread Severin Menard

Hi,

This would be IMHO an horrible practice, for the complex buildings skilled
mappers took the time to map + basically all the round huts.
As a common OSM rule is not to tag for the rendering, a new one should be
not to distord the data because of the shortcomings of an editing tool. ID
should propose a building tool or automatically propose to square the
buildings to anyone having drawn a surface and tag it as a building.
Basically it is IMHO a few hours of code vs tons of hours for validators to
clean the crappy data. I had a brief discussion about this with someone
from Mapbox during the Nepal activation, when it was obvious the higher
proportion of new mappers was producing data with lower quality than usual
during activations. People from Mapbox, please consider to improve iD in
this way.

Sincerely,

Severin
Le 14 avr. 2016 11:44, "john whelan"  a écrit :

> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
>
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>
>> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
>> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>
>>> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
>>> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
>>> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
>>> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
>>> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
>>> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
>>> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
>>> thankless and tedious task.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Suzan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>>>
>>> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
>>> buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
>>> buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
>>> part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
>>> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
>>> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>>>
>>> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way
>>> at 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
>>> shapes using this method.
>>>
>>> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>>>
>>> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
>>> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
>>> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
>>> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>>>
>>> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
>>> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
>>> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
>>> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
>>> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
>>> as a validator.
>>>
>>> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
>>> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
>>> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
>>> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
>>> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
>>> power tool, but with iD instead.
>>>
>>> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
>>> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
>>> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
>>> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
>>> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
>>> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>>> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at
>>> the beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>>>
>>> Just a suggestion!
>>>
>>> Suzan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
>>> wrote:
>>> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
>>> they

[HOT] Article on HOT in OneWorld (Dutch only at the moment)

2016-04-14 Thread Paul Uithol


Hi all,

Don't think a link to this article has been posted yet - 
https://www.oneworld.nl/werelddoeners/digitale-reddingswerkers. It's a 
very nice introduction and explanation to HOT's work, featuring quite a 
bit of input from Nama Budhathoki, Blake, people from the Red Cross, 
MSF, Canadian Armed Forces, and a tiny bit from myself ;).


best,
Paul

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

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

Thank you Pete.

Any other input on squaring buildings in validation?  Note I'm not asking
how to square a building just what to do when a validator is faced with 500
unsquared buildings.

Thanks

Cheerio John

On 14 April 2016 at 07:58, Pete Masters  wrote:

> From my side, I would support that proposal, John…
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> *Pete Masters*
> Missing Maps Project Coordinator
> MSF UK
> phone: +44 7921 781 518
>
> skype: pedrito1414
>
> twitter: @pedrito1414 
>
>
> @theMissingMaps 
> facebook.com/MissingMapsProject
> 
>
>
>
> missingmaps.org 
>
> msf.org.uk 
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 12:42
> *To:* Jo Hannes
> *Cc:* hot@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Squared buildings
>
>
>
> I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
> the validators.
>
> Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
> squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:
>
> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
>
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>
> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
> thankless and tedious task.
>
> Cheers!
> Suzan
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>
> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings
> in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings
> of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a
> validation workflow and could even be automated.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you
> can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>
> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
> shapes using this method.
>
> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>
> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>
> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
> as a validator.
>
> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
> power tool, but with iD instead.
>
> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>
> Just a suggestion!
>
> Suzan
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they
> weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
> mapper also left behind

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

From my side, I would support that proposal, John…

Pete

Pete Masters
Missing Maps Project Coordinator
MSF UK
phone: +44 7921 781 518
skype: pedrito1414
twitter: @pedrito1414

@theMissingMaps
facebook.com/MissingMapsProject

missingmaps.org
msf.org.uk

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 April 2016 12:42
To: Jo Hannes
Cc: hot@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for the 
validators.
Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and 
squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?
Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo > 
wrote:
It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin to 
iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.

Jo

2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed 
>:
JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD power 
user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once rather than one 
at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all of them and then 
trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing worked. Maybe the iD 
team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then square all their 
buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It would be quite useful. 
Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a thankless and tedious task.

Cheers!
Suzan

On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan 
> wrote:

I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all buildings in 
JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree buildings of 
course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be part of a 
validation workflow and could even be automated.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo 
> wrote:
If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason, you can 
start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.

Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at 15 
degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric shapes 
using this method.

One has to know the tool one is working with.

When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over and 
over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring the 
rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude tool 
easier, if it's needed to improve the building.

I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all those 
buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q] hundreds of 
times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly unsquared buildings. 
Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to the user and validate the 
tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out as a validator.

I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to validate 
their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating screencasts and posting 
a link to it in the comment field. This was rather effective, but it still is 
rather time consuming and there are always new users coming in, which, for some 
reason, were not trained with JOSM the power tool, but with iD instead.

Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the 
advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful at 
getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to something 
new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also because I 
don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I moved on to 
other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).

Polyglot

2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed 
>:
How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the 
beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.

Just a suggestion!

Suzan

On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think they 
weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same mapper 
also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the same as a 
building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in JOSM to draw such 
a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM and the building_tool 
plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.

I'm asking a pragmatic question given that

Re: [HOT] Squared buildings

I think we are agreed that squaring individual buildings is a hassle for
the validators.

Do I hear that selecting all buildings with less than 7 nodes and
squaring/resquaring them all at once is acceptable although not ideal?

Thanks John

On 14 April 2016 at 04:15, Jo  wrote:

> It would be far better to add a tool comparable to buildings-tools plugin
> to iD. We should have proposed that for GSoC2016... well, maybe next year.
>
> Jo
>
> 2016-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>
>> JOSM is the tool to use, I agree. However I did become somewhat of an iD
>> power user and so I just tried to square a number of polygons at once
>> rather than one at a time. I tried many variations including selecting all
>> of them and then trying to apply the “s” tool and grouping them. Nothing
>> worked. Maybe the iD team could add that to iD? Then new mappers could then
>> square all their buildings in one go when the mistake is pointed out. It
>> would be quite useful. Squaring buildings in either iD or JOSM is a
>> thankless and tedious task.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Suzan
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:01 PM, Ralf Stephan  wrote:
>>
>> I might be missing something but what's wrong with selecting all
>> buildings in JOSM via Search (check if there are huts selected or 45-degree
>> buildings of course) and then do a mass orthogonalization? That would be
>> part of a validation workflow and could even be automated.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM Jo  wrote:
>> If you want a building squared at 45 degrees in JOSM, for some reason,
>> you can start with a closed way with 8 nodes, then use the circle tool.
>>
>> Or you can press 'a' twice, allowing you to add the next part of a way at
>> 15 degree angle intervals. It's possible to create really nice geometric
>> shapes using this method.
>>
>> One has to know the tool one is working with.
>>
>> When people insist on working with iD, it's necessary to tell them (over
>> and over again) about the importance of doing the extra step of squaring
>> the rectangular buildings. For one thing, it makes using JOSM's extrude
>> tool easier, if it's needed to improve the building.
>>
>> I understand that, as a validator, it's extremely tedious to square all
>> those buildings, even when using the todo plugin and pressing ]q]q]q]q]q]
>> hundreds of times. You could invalidate the tiles which contain mostly
>> unsquared buildings. Or you could just leave them alone, post a remark to
>> the user and validate the tile anyway. Better that than becoming burned out
>> as a validator.
>>
>> I've been trying to get people to understand how much work it is to
>> validate their tiles, when buildings are not squared by creating
>> screencasts and posting a link to it in the comment field. This was rather
>> effective, but it still is rather time consuming and there are always new
>> users coming in, which, for some reason, were not trained with JOSM the
>> power tool, but with iD instead.
>>
>> Anyway, those screencasts were also meant as a way to show people the
>> advantages of using JOSM, but I don't know if I have been very successful
>> at getting them to start using it. It's hard to make people switch to
>> something new, which is why I'll be teaching only JOSM, this Saturday (also
>> because I don't know iD all that well, ofc). I failed to follow up, as I
>> moved on to other projects that gave me more satisfaction (as a validator).
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> 2016-04-14 4:15 GMT+02:00 Suzan Reed :
>> How about showing people how to map a building and square it right at the
>> beginning of mapping? It’s all one motion for me.
>>
>> Just a suggestion!
>>
>> Suzan
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, john whelan 
>> wrote:
>> Seeing 200 unsquared buildings by one mapper on a tile makes me think
>> they weren't using JOSM and the building-tool.  I could be wrong, the same
>> mapper also left behind three area=yes squares that just happened to be the
>> same as a building image.  Again it is perfectly possible to do this in
>> JOSM to draw such a shape and tag it area=yes, though why anyone with JOSM
>> and the building_tool plugin would do such a thing I can't imagine.
>>
>> I'm asking a pragmatic question given that I'm seeing so many unsquared
>> buildings when validating is it essential they be squared?  and if so how
>> do we get squared buildings?
>>
>> From my experience with hosting Missing Maps and HOT mapathons many of
>> the mappers are first time contributors. We try to get them mapping as
>> quickly as possible. After a period of time we introduce new techniques,
>> such as squaring buildings and copy paste. The behavior you observed may be
>> the lack of training. If its possible to find out if the mapper attended an
>> event and if so who organized it to give gentle

Re: [HOT] Missing Maps User Stats

Joost,
It's *not case sensitive*. It looks like the backend workers basically
stopped working yesterday. Working on getting everything back up and
running in the next couple of hours and we should still be able to track
all of the edits yesterday.

Good luck on Saturday and let me know if you have any other questions.

Dale

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:56 AM, joost schouppe 
wrote:

> Is this thing case sensitive?
>
> There are no statistics about task 1775, and I see it suggesting #MissingMaps
>  as opposed to #missingmaps as a changeset comment. If that's the case,
> we should really keep an eye on these comments!
>
>  Example:
> http://www.missingmaps.org/leaderboards/#/missingmaps,hotosm-project-1775
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>

-- 
sent from my mobile device

Dale Kunce
http://normalhabit.com
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Mapping party in Barcelona