Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Kate Chapman wrote: > I agree with you when a large amount of new people start the quality > can go down. My theory is there needs to be a certain ratio of senior > mappers to new people to keep the quality high. However I think as > people learn how to fix their mistakes the quality will go up again > and they will in turn be able to help new people avoid those mistakes. Might this imply that when introducing (possibly large) groups to mapping, it would be good practice to introduce a smaller group of them first (perhaps a week or two before the main group), so that not all of the group are beginners at the same time, but have some more people (other than the instructors) to help them a bit? __John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
> From: Andrew Errington [mailto:a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk] > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions > > I thought this was foolish at the time, and it still is. > > highway=* should match the classification given by the government or > roading authority, and should match whatever type of road is on the road > sign. This is entirely objective. To do otherwise is subjective- if > two mappers are presented with the same road one might say "This is a > major road, it's highway=primary", but another might say "This is a > fairly major road, but it's not very busy. It's highway=secondary". > Instead, look at the badge on the sign. In the wiki should be a mapping > from road designation (on a roadsign) to highway=* tag. After all, > nobody disagrees what highway=motorway means, so why open the other > types to interpretation? > > I don't know for sure, but I expect that the initial list of road > classifications were derived from UK Ordnance Survey classifications: > > In my opinion highway=* should match the visible government > classification. Next, if we add lanes=*, width=* and maxspeed=* then > other people (or other people's software) can adjust the importance of > any segment of the road based on objective data, not subjective > interpretation. Not all regions have meaningful government classifications. BC has only one highway classification. If you were to tag based on government classification you would have 2-4 classifications. One for local residential, commercial and industrial roads, potentially 1-2 for collector roads, and one for highways, be they single lane or major motorways. The tagging here is remarkably consistent and bears no relation to what it would be if we tagged solely on government classification. I've been working on documenting it (currently at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/BC_Tagging) but haven't had time to complete it and present it to talk-ca@. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On 12/7/2011 7:08 PM, Andrew Errington wrote: I don't know for sure, but I expect that the initial list of road classifications were derived from UK Ordnance Survey classifications: Motorway - motorway A road - primary B road - secondary 'yellow' road - tertiary 'white' road - unclassified dual-carriageway - trunk upgraded A road - primary + motorroad "Motorroad" is a recent tag, and means that bikes and pedestrians are not allowed (I don't know if this is always true on an "upgraded A road"). Trunk was and still is (?) used for the "primary route network" in the UK, which I believe use green on signs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On 12/7/2011 7:31 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: But if the road classification matches to the actual utility of the road why not use it. It doesn't in the U.S. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On 12/7/2011 7:42 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 12/7/2011 6:47 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: There are a lot of road classifications already in the wiki for example here is the one for the US: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Road_Classification This has a number of problems: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NE2/classification_FAQ#How_about_other_classifications.3F Wait a sec - I was confusing this with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System Anyway the arguments on my page still apply with respect to U.S./state highways being badly inconsistent between states. For example, Little Shepherd Trail in Kentucky is a state highway and, by the page you linked, would be secondary, but such a classification would be misleading as hell: http://www.harlancountytrails.com/littleshepherdtrail.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my-cykJrWqc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On 12/7/2011 6:47 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: There are a lot of road classifications already in the wiki for example here is the one for the US: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Road_Classification This has a number of problems: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NE2/classification_FAQ#How_about_other_classifications.3F ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Thu, December 8, 2011 09:27, Tobias Knerr wrote: > With the German road numbering scheme, the administrative > classification is also already defined by the ref=* tag. So choosing the > highway value based on the administrative classification would duplicate > that information. Hmm. Unfortunately that won't work in Korea as the refs are just numbers. For example, near me I have a blue oval '37' (national road) and a yellow rectangle '37' (local road). Best wishes, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Thu, December 8, 2011 09:20, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Andrew Errington wrote: > >> I don't know for sure, but I expect that the initial list of road >> classifications were derived from UK Ordnance Survey classifications: >> > > Yes. > > >> Motorway - motorway >> B road - secondary >> 'yellow' road - tertiary >> 'white' road - unclassified >> > > Pretty much, yes. tertiary/unclassified isn't a hard and fast rule. > > >> dual-carriageway - trunk A road - primary >> > > Not quite: > "primary A road (green signs)" -> trunk > "non-primary A road (white signs)" -> primary > > >> upgraded A road - primary + motorroad > > Not really used in the UK. I think that was introduced in Germany. > (Personally I think that was a good decision by the German mappers and I'd > like to see other countries do something similar, albeit co-ordinated > with other nations, rather than always trying to shoehorn in incompatible > systems to the UK-derived classification.) I thoroughly agree, but it's difficult to introduce a new classification, describe its meaning, and get agreement from renderers to render it in the right way (even if it renders the same as another road class it still needs to be specified somewhere). If it's possible to match local road classification to the existing OSM model then that's a Good Thing. In Korea, I felt it was actually quite easy to do this[1]. Unfortunately someone else came up with a different scheme before me that doesn't actually capture the differences. Since then I have been encouraging everyone to consider my suggestions. What I'd really like is for Mapnik to render the road symbols in the same way as Korean road signs (red/blue shield, blue oval, white octagon, yellow rectangle) but it seems like a trivial request and Mapnik authors have more important things to do. Best wishes, Andrew [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Korea_Road_Classification ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
So in my experience in Indonesia we have translated the presets literally. As you would with a translation I suppose=). The question the repeatedly comes up in the training though is "is this the equivalent of X road-type in Indonesia." It seems like people have an okay idea of how the types map over here. So maybe this doesn't work in all countries, but this is a question we've gotten multiple times from multiple groups. I agree having to figure out who is paying for which road is a silly way to classify. But if the road classification matches to the actual utility of the road why not use it. -Kate On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Kate Chapman wrote: >> I'm not sure why that makes sense. Saying to people "Okay we know you >> call these types of roads national government roads, well in OSM we >> call them primary. So let's create a completely new vocabulary in >> your country that nobody will remember." > > There isn't only one possible way to categorize roads. There may be an > administrative classification, but you could also categorize them by > importance or whatever other metric you can think of. > > From my experience in Germany, we do not necessarily choose the highway > value based on the administrative classification, but ultimately based > on the significance of that road in the road network. > Usually, a driver wants to find the road that is the most relevant > connection between two places, rather than learn which administrative > entity pays for the maintenance of the road. With the German road > numbering scheme, the administrative classification is also already > defined by the ref=* tag. So choosing the highway value based on the > administrative classification would duplicate that information. > > Why is this relevant for translations? Well, the translation should > match the classification that is supposed to be represented by highway > values. If a translation conflicts with local interpretation of these > values, it will create confusion. > > Tobias > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
Kate Chapman wrote: > I'm not sure why that makes sense. Saying to people "Okay we know you > call these types of roads national government roads, well in OSM we > call them primary. So let's create a completely new vocabulary in > your country that nobody will remember." There isn't only one possible way to categorize roads. There may be an administrative classification, but you could also categorize them by importance or whatever other metric you can think of. >From my experience in Germany, we do not necessarily choose the highway value based on the administrative classification, but ultimately based on the significance of that road in the road network. Usually, a driver wants to find the road that is the most relevant connection between two places, rather than learn which administrative entity pays for the maintenance of the road. With the German road numbering scheme, the administrative classification is also already defined by the ref=* tag. So choosing the highway value based on the administrative classification would duplicate that information. Why is this relevant for translations? Well, the translation should match the classification that is supposed to be represented by highway values. If a translation conflicts with local interpretation of these values, it will create confusion. Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
Andrew Errington wrote: > I don't know for sure, but I expect that the initial list of road > classifications were derived from UK Ordnance Survey > classifications: Yes. > Motorway - motorway > B road - secondary > 'yellow' road - tertiary > 'white' road - unclassified Pretty much, yes. tertiary/unclassified isn't a hard and fast rule. > dual-carriageway - trunk > A road - primary Not quite: "primary A road (green signs)" -> trunk "non-primary A road (white signs)" -> primary > upgraded A road - primary + motorroad Not really used in the UK. I think that was introduced in Germany. (Personally I think that was a good decision by the German mappers and I'd like to see other countries do something similar, albeit co-ordinated with other nations, rather than always trying to shoehorn in incompatible systems to the UK-derived classification.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSmosa-net-run-now-contribution-model-tp7063876p7072776.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Wed, December 7, 2011 22:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/12/7 Kate Chapman : > >> I wonder if custom presets could help with the road classification. >> We've had the same problem in parts of Indonesia, but that is because >> the road classifications are simply translated. Â Translating the word >> primary doesn't mean much for the type of road it is. Â Changing the >> word used in the preset to the specific known government classification >> could help. > > > That would be an interpretation though. Some time ago we voted about > the highway-classification and decided that it shouldn't necessarily > corrispond to the local government classification, that's why the presets > usually are translated and don't associate a certain road type to local > government classification (usually there is more then one > government-classification, the one visible at the road is (where I know > of) the one of the maintaining entity, which is not in every case the > classification of importance of the connection, as planning engineers see > it). I thought this was foolish at the time, and it still is. highway=* should match the classification given by the government or roading authority, and should match whatever type of road is on the road sign. This is entirely objective. To do otherwise is subjective- if two mappers are presented with the same road one might say "This is a major road, it's highway=primary", but another might say "This is a fairly major road, but it's not very busy. It's highway=secondary". Instead, look at the badge on the sign. In the wiki should be a mapping from road designation (on a roadsign) to highway=* tag. After all, nobody disagrees what highway=motorway means, so why open the other types to interpretation? I don't know for sure, but I expect that the initial list of road classifications were derived from UK Ordnance Survey classifications: Motorway - motorway A road - primary B road - secondary 'yellow' road - tertiary 'white' road - unclassified dual-carriageway - trunk upgraded A road - primary + motorroad In my opinion highway=* should match the visible government classification. Next, if we add lanes=*, width=* and maxspeed=* then other people (or other people's software) can adjust the importance of any segment of the road based on objective data, not subjective interpretation. Best wishes, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
Martin, I'm not sure why that makes sense. Saying to people "Okay we know you call these types of roads national government roads, well in OSM we call them primary. So let's create a completely new vocabulary in your country that nobody will remember." There are a lot of road classifications already in the wiki for example here is the one for the US: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Road_Classification And here is one for Korea: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Korea_Road_Classification Maybe we are just not understanding each other. -Kate On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/12/7 Kate Chapman : >> I wonder if custom presets could help with the road classification. >> We've had the same problem in parts of Indonesia, but that is because >> the road classifications are simply translated. Translating the word >> primary doesn't mean much for the type of road it is. Changing the >> word used in the preset to the specific known government >> classification could help. > > > That would be an interpretation though. Some time ago we voted about > the highway-classification and decided that it shouldn't necessarily > corrispond to the local government classification, that's why the > presets usually are translated and don't associate a certain road type > to local government classification (usually there is more then one > government-classification, the one visible at the road is (where I > know of) the one of the maintaining entity, which is not in every case > the classification of importance of the connection, as planning > engineers see it). > > cheers, > Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:58:30 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/12/7 mick : > >> Martijn van Exel wrote: > >> That's an interesting thought, but part of the excitement of > >> contributing to OSM is the instant gratification of seeing your own > >> improvements on the map and being able to share your knowledge with > >> the world right away. Having new contributors make their first > >> contributions in a sandbox environment takes away a lot of that > >> excitement. Moreover, I think it's important for novices to feel the > >> responsibility and power of > >> editing a live database, something they will only be able to > >> appreciate if they actually do it. > > > +1 > > > > The logic?? behind my suggestion for a sandbox is that, especially in the > > earliest stages is that the stupid mistakes can be made and a form of > > instant gratification is presented by the dummy server/site which is > > running a sacrificial subset of OSM. > > > there is AFAIK a sandbox on the devserver, but I agree with Martijn: > better start with learning responsibility and edit the real data. > > > >> Sure, they will make mistakes at first. Everyone does. It's no big > >> deal, as long as people are willing to improve and learn. I for one am > >> glad that not many of my early 2007 edits are still around. > > > > I have to admit that my idea of a dummy or testing/learning server would > > help me with my own project - mapping of historic objects that may only > > remain as stains and other archaeology under the ground, such as Roman > > Roads, Marching Camps etc. > > > interesting. I suggest you have a look at the keys > historic:civilization, > historic=road/archaeological_site/aqueduct/tomb/..., ruins=yes I have been including items with those tags but a lot of what I'm seeking to map is only visible to geophysical survey or archaeological digs therefore not eligible for inclusion on OSM. I am starting with OSM data as a base layer to tie the details onto and as a source of data. I thought using a discrete OSM like server would save me having to reinvent the wheel, particularly if others felt an urge to share. mick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
2011/12/7 Kate Chapman : > I wonder if custom presets could help with the road classification. > We've had the same problem in parts of Indonesia, but that is because > the road classifications are simply translated. Translating the word > primary doesn't mean much for the type of road it is. Changing the > word used in the preset to the specific known government > classification could help. That would be an interpretation though. Some time ago we voted about the highway-classification and decided that it shouldn't necessarily corrispond to the local government classification, that's why the presets usually are translated and don't associate a certain road type to local government classification (usually there is more then one government-classification, the one visible at the road is (where I know of) the one of the maintaining entity, which is not in every case the classification of importance of the connection, as planning engineers see it). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
2011/12/7 mick : >> Martijn van Exel wrote: >> That's an interesting thought, but part of the excitement of >> contributing to OSM is the instant gratification of seeing your own >> improvements on the map and being able to share your knowledge with >> the world right away. Having new contributors make their first >> contributions in a sandbox environment takes away a lot of that >> excitement. Moreover, I think it's important for novices to feel the >> responsibility and power of >> editing a live database, something they will only be able to >> appreciate if they actually do it. +1 > The logic?? behind my suggestion for a sandbox is that, especially in the > earliest stages is that the stupid mistakes can be made and a form of instant > gratification is presented by the dummy server/site which is running a > sacrificial subset of OSM. there is AFAIK a sandbox on the devserver, but I agree with Martijn: better start with learning responsibility and edit the real data. >> Sure, they will make mistakes at first. Everyone does. It's no big >> deal, as long as people are willing to improve and learn. I for one am >> glad that not many of my early 2007 edits are still around. > > I have to admit that my idea of a dummy or testing/learning server would help > me with my own project - mapping of historic objects that may only remain as > stains and other archaeology under the ground, such as Roman Roads, Marching > Camps etc. interesting. I suggest you have a look at the keys historic:civilization, historic=road/archaeological_site/aqueduct/tomb/..., ruins=yes cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 22:11:03 -0700 Martijn van Exel wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:23 PM, mick wrote: > [..] > >> If OSM is taught in the classroom and this results in lots of errors, > >> then either OSM was not the right subject to teach, or was not taught > >> well ;) > > > > Letting utter novices loose on live data strikes me as crazy, they will > > make dumb mistakes that even a GOOD instructor could easily miss, what > > would it take to provide a 'dummy' server that could be readily be > > downloaded and installed at the training site, perhaps along the lines of a > > 'LiveCD'. > > That's an interesting thought, but part of the excitement of > contributing to OSM is the instant gratification of seeing your own > improvements on the map and being able to share your knowledge with > the world right away. Having new contributors make their first > contributions in a sandbox environment takes away a lot of that > excitement. Moreover, I think it's important for novices to feel the > responsibility and power of > editing a live database, something they will only be able to > appreciate if they actually do it. The logic?? behind my suggestion for a sandbox is that, especially in the earliest stages is that the stupid mistakes can be made and a form of instant gratification is presented by the dummy server/site which is running a sacrificial subset of OSM. This also allows demonstration of some of the uglier mistakes novices make. Based on my experience school boys are sure to do things an sane adult will see as dangerous and/or destructive. Once they meet a basic standard they would move on to the live data. I have been 'playing' with computer mapping, on and off, since about 1996 and still mess up my data to the point that deleting the lot and starting again is the easiest option, especially since I started trying to make sense of the sometimes anarchic tagging I have encountered in OSM and OS Open Data's separation of labels from the objects they apply to. > > Sure, they will make mistakes at first. Everyone does. It's no big > deal, as long as people are willing to improve and learn. I for one am > glad that not many of my early 2007 edits are still around. I have to admit that my idea of a dummy or testing/learning server would help me with my own project - mapping of historic objects that may only remain as stains and other archaeology under the ground, such as Roman Roads, Marching Camps etc. mick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:45:37 +0100 Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:37:32 + > "Jaakko Helleranta.com" wrote: > > That is: as the contributors' tech-savvyness decreases we see a clear > > hike in various sorts of data problems. > > ... > > > Not having _something_ like this is a major problem. > > There is an obvious alternative solution - if OpenStreetMap is too > complex for non-tech-savvy users, then don't bring them. _I_ believe that approach will result in a withering and increasingly _exclusive_ project. > > There are people who actively recruit non-tech-savvy people to > OpenStreetMap; maybe instead of requesting a change in OpenStreetMap > which you might not be able to help with, maybe you should petition > those people to stop what they're doing, or train users better! If you recruit non-tech-savvy people you SHOULD be guiding them towards quality work, within the scope of the project. At the same time OSM should to grow to simplify accurate data entry, particularly in regard to CLEAR CONCISE tagging. The raw recuits of today include people who, once they learn, will help carry the project forward in the future > > If OSM is taught in the classroom and this results in lots of errors, > then either OSM was not the right subject to teach, or was not taught > well ;) Letting utter novices loose on live data strikes me as crazy, they will make dumb mistakes that even a GOOD instructor could easily miss, what would it take to provide a 'dummy' server that could be readily be downloaded and installed at the training site, perhaps along the lines of a 'LiveCD'. mick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:37:32 + > "Jaakko Helleranta.com" wrote: >> That is: as the contributors' tech-savvyness decreases we see a clear >> hike in various sorts of data problems. > > ... > >> Not having _something_ like this is a major problem. > > There is an obvious alternative solution - if OpenStreetMap is too > complex for non-tech-savvy users, then don't bring them. > [...] That is obviously not an alternative. Whether we're actively recruiting less tech-savvy users or not, and educating them sufficiently well or not, people of very different backgrounds will continue to be attracted to the project, and we should embrace that diversity and not engage in a policy of passive or active exclusion. We will need more solutions to deal with assessing quality of contributions, and I think the changeset assessment tools Serge was referring to are a very good and feasible step in that direction. -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
Hi, On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:37:32 + "Jaakko Helleranta.com" wrote: > That is: as the contributors' tech-savvyness decreases we see a clear > hike in various sorts of data problems. ... > Not having _something_ like this is a major problem. There is an obvious alternative solution - if OpenStreetMap is too complex for non-tech-savvy users, then don't bring them. There are people who actively recruit non-tech-savvy people to OpenStreetMap; maybe instead of requesting a change in OpenStreetMap which you might not be able to help with, maybe you should petition those people to stop what they're doing, or train users better! If OSM is taught in the classroom and this results in lots of errors, then either OSM was not the right subject to teach, or was not taught well ;) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote: > I know, and that's why I shouldn't have even put it in the Subject. So, I'm > talking about flagging changesets (that are already committed into the live > db) for review. We've talked about changeset comments (and possibly flags, and votes). This, I think, would be very useful. I started working on this (but then abandoned it) and I think Frederik was looking at working on it. This wouldn't be a huge amount of work and I think would be fairly popular. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
wrote:
> This is precisely what I've seen in Haiti and discussed with a number of the
> local contributors, too.
>
> That is: as the contributors' tech-savvyness decreases we see a clear hike in
> various sorts of data problems.
This is an interesting conclusion.
Do you have evidence for what you're saying other than anecdotal evidence?
I've seen reports that say that as the total number of users
increases, the map quality goes up. You're saying the opposite, so I'd
like to see some kind of metric.
> Bundle that with not-so-large active user base (of people who do quality
> fixing) and you have a problematic situation at hand.
This is why I'm asking for your approach in coming to the conclusion.
I see multiple factors in play.
> What I'd love to see and what the contributors here would also want to have
> is a system where contributors can flag their edits with something that would
> que the changesets in question to an (open) review stack.
> This kind of review que wouldn't actually moderate anything but would simply
> flag the changesets for review ("quality ensurance", if u may).
>
> I'd also very much like to see some (open) mechanism where users that cause
> problems time and again could be flagged like this.
>
> Not having _something_ like this is a major problem.
We don't have a moderation system. If you build one, then maybe
someone will think it's interesting/usefu and take a look. But right
now we don't have one, and many people don't want one.
The only way to change their minds would be to show it in use.
> Since I'm not a developer I can't unfortunately create anything that would
> solve the problem. But could someone tell me how much it
> would/could cost to create something that would?
I'd estimate about 5-10k USD for a good solid working prototype.
- Serge
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Moderating / Quality checking OSM contributions -- was: Re: OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
This is precisely what I've seen in Haiti and discussed with a number of the
local contributors, too.
That is: as the contributors' tech-savvyness decreases we see a clear hike in
various sorts of data problems.
Bundle that with not-so-large active user base (of people who do quality
fixing) and you have a problematic situation at hand.
There were some really good replies earlier (imho) to the questions of
moderation/quality_checking (I think this was a little while after SoTM --
check talk@osm archive if u missed them and are interested).
What I'd love to see and what the contributors here would also want to have is
a system where contributors can flag their edits with something that would que
the changesets in question to an (open) review stack.
This kind of review que wouldn't actually moderate anything but would simply
flag the changesets for review ("quality ensurance", if u may).
This should most certainly b opt-in in general but imho it could and should b
used used as default for eg situations where osm is taught in the classroom.
I'd also very much like to see some (open) mechanism where users that cause
problems time and again could be flagged like this.
Not having _something_ like this is a major problem.
Example: I just spent nearly half day yesterday fixing one beginner's mess in
PaP and am seeing that wasting time on things like this eats badly from the
time that people who end up fixing them could have for creating neat things for
OSM be it fixing/creating tools or partnerships, coordinating, or actual
mapping.
Since I'm not a developer I can't unfortunately create anything that would
solve the problem. But could someone tell me how much it would/could cost to
create something that would?
I want to emphasize that this is something that not only the more advanced
people would like to have (in the hopes that it would give them more time for
doing something more useful, essentially, to b more productive for the project)
but it's also what many regular mappers have specifically asked for (in Haiti)
as they don't want to break things.
Cheers,
-Jaakko
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel
--
Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta
-Original Message-
From: Frans Thamura
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:52:54
To: Steve Bennett
Cc: openstreetmap; Aun Johnsen
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
hi all
my idea about this program, because we teach contributor, and they are
start from 15 years old.
every of them "must" contribute to the map server, and if the map data
is not ok, or they remove the data.. i believe that will be nightmare,
if hundreds student do mistake.
but .. i think also wasting time, if we must redo what they did
www.facebook.com/meruvian > to know what will we do?
F
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:11 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2) Post-process the diff files to change the id of any new elements to a
>> negative value. This is simply a matter of multiplying the id by -1 if the
>> element's version attribute is 1.
>
> Naive question here: so the OSM copy ends up with negative numbers?
> Isn't that bad? Also, in any case, you end up with different IDs in
> the two databases, no? Or do you then also update the ID in the source
> database to be negative as well, and then reset the id counter?
>
> Steve
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
