Re: [HOT] Buildings and HOT's reputation in OSM
I would agree with you on shape visually but the area of a building is used by some to estimate population and the question is when we change the shape we also change the area albeit slightly. My scientific background suggests this is an additional element of error. However given the quality of the mapping it is probably not significant but I'm not qualified to say. All I can do is identify possible problem areas. The other problem is round buildings, square them and you do get significant errors creeping in. So the process of squaring them should ensure they are omitted from the squaring process. ie select buildings in JOSM then hit q may not give the results desired. Has anyone done a proper analysis? Better tools may help in the future but there is still the problem of what is there currently. At the moment I get the impression this is considered not to be a HOT responsibility even though much of the poor mapping was done by HOT mappers working on HOT projects and that is unfortunately the view held by a number of OSM mappers that HOT is irresponsible. Cheerio John On 10 December 2017 at 06:26, Scott Davies wrote: > >From a validation point of view does it matter if the building is not > square? Is it acceptable to square a building even though we know this > will introduce an element of approximation or error. > > John, just on this one point, I'm not sure this is true. The 'element of > approximation' is inherent in the mapping process, and is there whether the > building is squared or not. If the building is rectangular in reality, then > squaring it will make it better represent the actual shape than a freehand > version would. I'm not convinced it would generally make any real > difference in terms of its area either. > > > > On 10 December 2017 at 00:47, john whelan wrote: > >> I have considerable coding experience but not in JAVA script which is >> required for iD as I understand it and since it about two years to get up >> to speed with a new programming language I'll take a pass on that. There >> is a building_tool available now in JOSM and new mappers are quite capable >> of using it. I was involved with a maperthon recently mapping buildings >> and I just had all the new mappers use JOSM and the building_tool. Jo has >> had a similar experience in Belgium. >> >> There are times when iD must be used for example when JAVA cannot be >> installed or its an Apple computer but for Windows machines if you're >> mapping buildings the building_tool plugin does an excellent job. If you >> ask the new mappers nicely to install JAVA on their machines before the >> maperthon its quite fast to get them up and working. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> On 9 December 2017 at 19:35, Phil (The Geek) Wyatt > > wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> >>> >>> Seems to be a few new issues here but I will have a go at them. >>> >>> >>> >>> · I have never been to a mapathon so can't comment on anything >>> to do with them >>> >>> · As I understand it, Missing Maps is a different organisation >>> that just uses the HOT tasking manager. Their general mandate seems to be >>> to work with local communities. If they are not, then you probably need to >>> take that up with them (or their participating organisations). I have only >>> worked on their projects via the HOT tasking manager >>> >>> · Do you have coding experience that can help with the ID >>> building tool? >>> >>> · I still think some alert to save frequently (regardless of >>> tile lock time) would be a better solution than extending tile lock time. >>> That might simply mean that more objects have been mapped over a longer >>> period and the problem compounds. >>> >>> · Correcting buildings when validating/shortage of validators? >>> OK if this is unlikely to be the solution then we are back to better tools >>> for initial digitising. Can you help with coding? >>> >>> · Wasn't aware of any scoring for validated tiles. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers - Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:07 AM >>> *To:* Phil (The Geek) Wyatt >>> *Cc:* hot@openstreetmap.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Buildings and HOT's reputation in OSM >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the London mapperthons expect 30% of their attendees to return. >>> So unfortunately 50% can be expected to be "disposable" mappers and they >>> don't search out the information as you do. If we can keep their interest >>> a bit longer they make fewer mistakes. So one thing might be to see what >>> we can do to help them return more than once. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two sides to HOT, one is the disaster side and I think that >>> side needs the very organised approach to get things done quickly. The >>> other side is the "missing maps" side and that is where I think we could do >>> better in involving the locals. Generally speaking mappers feel more >>> commitment and involvement mapping locally. T
[HOT] weeklyOSM #385 2017-11-28-2017-12-04
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 385, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9765/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Re: [HOT] Buildings and HOT's reputation in OSM
>From a validation point of view does it matter if the building is not square? Is it acceptable to square a building even though we know this will introduce an element of approximation or error. John, just on this one point, I'm not sure this is true. The 'element of approximation' is inherent in the mapping process, and is there whether the building is squared or not. If the building is rectangular in reality, then squaring it will make it better represent the actual shape than a freehand version would. I'm not convinced it would generally make any real difference in terms of its area either. On 10 December 2017 at 00:47, john whelan wrote: > I have considerable coding experience but not in JAVA script which is > required for iD as I understand it and since it about two years to get up > to speed with a new programming language I'll take a pass on that. There > is a building_tool available now in JOSM and new mappers are quite capable > of using it. I was involved with a maperthon recently mapping buildings > and I just had all the new mappers use JOSM and the building_tool. Jo has > had a similar experience in Belgium. > > There are times when iD must be used for example when JAVA cannot be > installed or its an Apple computer but for Windows machines if you're > mapping buildings the building_tool plugin does an excellent job. If you > ask the new mappers nicely to install JAVA on their machines before the > maperthon its quite fast to get them up and working. > > Cheerio John > > On 9 December 2017 at 19:35, Phil (The Geek) Wyatt > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> Seems to be a few new issues here but I will have a go at them. >> >> >> >> · I have never been to a mapathon so can't comment on anything >> to do with them >> >> · As I understand it, Missing Maps is a different organisation >> that just uses the HOT tasking manager. Their general mandate seems to be >> to work with local communities. If they are not, then you probably need to >> take that up with them (or their participating organisations). I have only >> worked on their projects via the HOT tasking manager >> >> · Do you have coding experience that can help with the ID >> building tool? >> >> · I still think some alert to save frequently (regardless of >> tile lock time) would be a better solution than extending tile lock time. >> That might simply mean that more objects have been mapped over a longer >> period and the problem compounds. >> >> · Correcting buildings when validating/shortage of validators? >> OK if this is unlikely to be the solution then we are back to better tools >> for initial digitising. Can you help with coding? >> >> · Wasn't aware of any scoring for validated tiles. >> >> >> >> Cheers - Phil >> >> >> >> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:07 AM >> *To:* Phil (The Geek) Wyatt >> *Cc:* hot@openstreetmap.org >> *Subject:* Re: [HOT] Buildings and HOT's reputation in OSM >> >> >> >> I think the London mapperthons expect 30% of their attendees to return. >> So unfortunately 50% can be expected to be "disposable" mappers and they >> don't search out the information as you do. If we can keep their interest >> a bit longer they make fewer mistakes. So one thing might be to see what >> we can do to help them return more than once. >> >> >> >> There are two sides to HOT, one is the disaster side and I think that >> side needs the very organised approach to get things done quickly. The >> other side is the "missing maps" side and that is where I think we could do >> better in involving the locals. Generally speaking mappers feel more >> commitment and involvement mapping locally. There are some projects run >> out of Africa and its interesting to see the project managers concerned >> develop their skill sets over time. The first projects can be really not >> well thought out but they learn by experience. OSM in general likes to see >> local mappers making decisions about imports etc. Unless we can develop >> the mapping skills of the locals they aren't going to feel involved and I >> think that is important. It's when you see the cafes and other POIs >> sneaking on to the map that you can be reasonably certain that there are >> locals getting involved and that is where HOT can get a few brownie points >> and at the moment I think it needs every one it can get. This is politics >> with a small p. >> >> >> >> New mappers first time mapping using iD for buildings you might be lucky >> to see twenty buildings. Give them a building_tool and you'll get a lot >> more out of them. When they map the tile is locked for two hours. At the >> end of that time the tile becomes available again to be mapped. The first >> mapper may not have uploaded their buildings. A second mapper now maps the >> same tile and when they both upload that is when I think we get the double >> mapping which is a waste of mapper time an
