Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping buildings in Canada by 2020

[James]

Personally the building plugin + JOSM is so much easier and faster than ID

1. You don't have to set the tags everytime (building=yes) you trace an
object
2. It's pretty much guaranteed to be squared (unless they fuss with it)
3. Using the extrude tool (x) with it helps with L shaped buildings
4. I've had people complain they lost their edits in ID because they did
massive edits and ID couldn't handle saving that many

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Tim Elrick  wrote:

> There are in fact, quite some German based mappers, mapping in Canada.
> So, you are right: let's just get more active mappers - worldwide; it
> is, however, still easier to activate them locally.
>
> I will pass on your positive experience with JOSM to my group for the
> next event.
>
> Cheers, Tim
>
> Am 23.11.2017 um 10:32 schrieb john whelan:
> >>I would have to run a query now to find out if the relative number of
> active mappers is higher in one country than the other, but that's not
> my point.
>
> But how do you determine where a mapper lives and don't forget many
> armchair mappers map in a different location to where they live.
>
> JOSM and the building_tool plugin worked very well for our lot.  We did
> ask them to come with JAVA installed and we only taught them enough JOSM
> to map a building with the plugin.  Well we showed them a few more
> things as they got more comfortable with it.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 23 November 2017 at 10:26, Tim Elrick  > wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for your feedback and background information.
>
> I think, we are on the same page. I am concerned with quality too,
> while
> mapping should remain enjoyable.
>
> We shied away from JOSM for newbies because it seemed more technical to
> my groups members. I personally like JOSM better, and the building
> plug-in is great. Maybe I manage to convince the group to use it
> next time.
>
> I did not intend to call for experienced mappers to do all the
> validation (I know it is tedious; however, correcting and esp. updating
> makes OSM great and in some place much better than the official
> sources). I think, that the group who initiated the mapping should
> 'clean up after themselves' (and I just wanted to affirm that we will
> do
> that). I just wanted to express gratitude to mappers how do help out.
>
> Once I am more into it, I am happy to help out validating other's work.
>
> I did not mean to cheery pick when I quoted the validation website (I
> very much appreciate the wiki page). I just wanted to make a point
> about
> timing.
>
> Regarding Canada, as a geographer I am fully aware of the fact Canada
> having relatively less population, however, it has still almost half of
> the population of Germany and the urban areas, which most of OSM
> mappers
> are concerned with, might be relatively (to population) similar in size
> (that's just a guess). I would have to run a query now to find out if
> the relative number of active mappers is higher in one country than the
> other, but that's not my point. The relative numbers do not matter, as
> actual people do the mapping. And there, I hope we agree, the Canadian
> OSM community could do with more active mappers.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Am 23.11.2017 um 07:54 schrieb john whelan:
> The issue is the quality of the mapping, nothing else. I attended one
> of
> these geoweek events and we used JOSM with the building_tool plugin.
> The mapping of buildings was accurate even though 75% of the mappers
> had
> never used JOSM before.  There was no formal validation done but I
> verified each mappers work as they did it.  I got the impression that
> the mappers enjoyed the exercise and I think for me that was the most
> important thing.  Mapping should be fun.
>
> There was no mention of the work would be validated nor did we record
> the mappers userids to ensure which mappers had mapped.  Other mappers
> had marked tiles done on the grid.
>
> I was under the impression that Stats Canada was involved but was later
> assured by them that this was not the case.
>
> The problem of lots of new mappers producing low quality work really
> reared its head during the Nepal crisis.  I do mainly validation on HOT
> projects in Africa and I ended up pulling in chunks of Africa and just
> trying to clean up the map.  Currently I'm looking at one mapper who
> has
> added more than a thousand ways with one tag I think it says
> source=PGS.  Data quality is a major issue in OpenStreetMap.  Recently
> someone gave up when looking for area=yes or buildings drawn in iD but
> left untagged for the most part.  I think in Europe it was 100,000 or
> more worldwide it was far higher and that's when the person looking at
> it gave up.
>
> There are many examples in Africa of groups of buildings being mapped
> as
>

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping buildings in Canada by 2020

[Tim Elrick]

There are in fact, quite some German based mappers, mapping in Canada.
So, you are right: let's just get more active mappers - worldwide; it
is, however, still easier to activate them locally.

I will pass on your positive experience with JOSM to my group for the
next event.

Cheers, Tim

Am 23.11.2017 um 10:32 schrieb john whelan:
>>I would have to run a query now to find out if the relative number of
active mappers is higher in one country than the other, but that's not
my point.

But how do you determine where a mapper lives and don't forget many
armchair mappers map in a different location to where they live.

JOSM and the building_tool plugin worked very well for our lot.  We did
ask them to come with JAVA installed and we only taught them enough JOSM
to map a building with the plugin.  Well we showed them a few more
things as they got more comfortable with it.

Cheerio John

On 23 November 2017 at 10:26, Tim Elrick mailto:o...@elrick.de>> wrote:

Hi John,

Thanks for your feedback and background information.

I think, we are on the same page. I am concerned with quality too, while
mapping should remain enjoyable.

We shied away from JOSM for newbies because it seemed more technical to
my groups members. I personally like JOSM better, and the building
plug-in is great. Maybe I manage to convince the group to use it
next time.

I did not intend to call for experienced mappers to do all the
validation (I know it is tedious; however, correcting and esp. updating
makes OSM great and in some place much better than the official
sources). I think, that the group who initiated the mapping should
'clean up after themselves' (and I just wanted to affirm that we will do
that). I just wanted to express gratitude to mappers how do help out.

Once I am more into it, I am happy to help out validating other's work.

I did not mean to cheery pick when I quoted the validation website (I
very much appreciate the wiki page). I just wanted to make a point about
timing.

Regarding Canada, as a geographer I am fully aware of the fact Canada
having relatively less population, however, it has still almost half of
the population of Germany and the urban areas, which most of OSM mappers
are concerned with, might be relatively (to population) similar in size
(that's just a guess). I would have to run a query now to find out if
the relative number of active mappers is higher in one country than the
other, but that's not my point. The relative numbers do not matter, as
actual people do the mapping. And there, I hope we agree, the Canadian
OSM community could do with more active mappers.

Tim


Am 23.11.2017 um 07:54 schrieb john whelan:
The issue is the quality of the mapping, nothing else. I attended one of
these geoweek events and we used JOSM with the building_tool plugin. 
The mapping of buildings was accurate even though 75% of the mappers had
never used JOSM before.  There was no formal validation done but I
verified each mappers work as they did it.  I got the impression that
the mappers enjoyed the exercise and I think for me that was the most
important thing.  Mapping should be fun.

There was no mention of the work would be validated nor did we record
the mappers userids to ensure which mappers had mapped.  Other mappers
had marked tiles done on the grid.

I was under the impression that Stats Canada was involved but was later
assured by them that this was not the case.

The problem of lots of new mappers producing low quality work really
reared its head during the Nepal crisis.  I do mainly validation on HOT
projects in Africa and I ended up pulling in chunks of Africa and just
trying to clean up the map.  Currently I'm looking at one mapper who has
added more than a thousand ways with one tag I think it says
source=PGS.  Data quality is a major issue in OpenStreetMap.  Recently
someone gave up when looking for area=yes or buildings drawn in iD but
left untagged for the most part.  I think in Europe it was 100,000 or
more worldwide it was far higher and that's when the person looking at
it gave up.

There are many examples in Africa of groups of buildings being mapped as
one building and labelled building=house.  That's what we are trying to
avoid.  It is possible to correctly map a building in iD I've seen it
done but it takes time.  It is far easier to sort of roughly get it
right and roughly means not accurately.  I think the thing we need to
avoid is a feeling the mapper needs to get a tile done. That's when they
start to rush things.

Building validation?  I can think of no validator who enjoys having to
take two or three times longer to correct someones's work than it would
take them to map it in JOSM with the building_tool in the first place. 
I'm unable to even think o

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping buildings in Canada by 2020

[john whelan]

>I would have to run a query now to find out if the relative number of
active mappers is higher in one country than the other, but that's not my
point.

But how do you determine where a mapper lives and don't forget many
armchair mappers map in a different location to where they live.

JOSM and the building_tool plugin worked very well for our lot.  We did ask
them to come with JAVA installed and we only taught them enough JOSM to map
a building with the plugin.  Well we showed them a few more things as they
got more comfortable with it.

Cheerio John

On 23 November 2017 at 10:26, Tim Elrick  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for your feedback and background information.
>
> I think, we are on the same page. I am concerned with quality too, while
> mapping should remain enjoyable.
>
> We shied away from JOSM for newbies because it seemed more technical to
> my groups members. I personally like JOSM better, and the building
> plug-in is great. Maybe I manage to convince the group to use it next time.
>
> I did not intend to call for experienced mappers to do all the
> validation (I know it is tedious; however, correcting and esp. updating
> makes OSM great and in some place much better than the official
> sources). I think, that the group who initiated the mapping should
> 'clean up after themselves' (and I just wanted to affirm that we will do
> that). I just wanted to express gratitude to mappers how do help out.
>
> Once I am more into it, I am happy to help out validating other's work.
>
> I did not mean to cheery pick when I quoted the validation website (I
> very much appreciate the wiki page). I just wanted to make a point about
> timing.
>
> Regarding Canada, as a geographer I am fully aware of the fact Canada
> having relatively less population, however, it has still almost half of
> the population of Germany and the urban areas, which most of OSM mappers
> are concerned with, might be relatively (to population) similar in size
> (that's just a guess). I would have to run a query now to find out if
> the relative number of active mappers is higher in one country than the
> other, but that's not my point. The relative numbers do not matter, as
> actual people do the mapping. And there, I hope we agree, the Canadian
> OSM community could do with more active mappers.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Am 23.11.2017 um 07:54 schrieb john whelan:
> The issue is the quality of the mapping, nothing else. I attended one of
> these geoweek events and we used JOSM with the building_tool plugin.
> The mapping of buildings was accurate even though 75% of the mappers had
> never used JOSM before.  There was no formal validation done but I
> verified each mappers work as they did it.  I got the impression that
> the mappers enjoyed the exercise and I think for me that was the most
> important thing.  Mapping should be fun.
>
> There was no mention of the work would be validated nor did we record
> the mappers userids to ensure which mappers had mapped.  Other mappers
> had marked tiles done on the grid.
>
> I was under the impression that Stats Canada was involved but was later
> assured by them that this was not the case.
>
> The problem of lots of new mappers producing low quality work really
> reared its head during the Nepal crisis.  I do mainly validation on HOT
> projects in Africa and I ended up pulling in chunks of Africa and just
> trying to clean up the map.  Currently I'm looking at one mapper who has
> added more than a thousand ways with one tag I think it says
> source=PGS.  Data quality is a major issue in OpenStreetMap.  Recently
> someone gave up when looking for area=yes or buildings drawn in iD but
> left untagged for the most part.  I think in Europe it was 100,000 or
> more worldwide it was far higher and that's when the person looking at
> it gave up.
>
> There are many examples in Africa of groups of buildings being mapped as
> one building and labelled building=house.  That's what we are trying to
> avoid.  It is possible to correctly map a building in iD I've seen it
> done but it takes time.  It is far easier to sort of roughly get it
> right and roughly means not accurately.  I think the thing we need to
> avoid is a feeling the mapper needs to get a tile done. That's when they
> start to rush things.
>
> Building validation?  I can think of no validator who enjoys having to
> take two or three times longer to correct someones's work than it would
> take them to map it in JOSM with the building_tool in the first place.
> I'm unable to even think of a case where a project has been validated
> and the buildings corrected.  When I validate I'm trying to correct the
> mapper's work and give them feedback so they will map more accurately in
> future.  There is no point in doing this to someone who will map once.
> It's a waste of my time.
>
> The wiki page you pointed to, I wrote much of it. the most important
> part which you skipped is feedback from a user.
>
>
>   Why do we validate?
>
> “OpenStreetMap is o

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping buildings in Canada by 2020

[Tim Elrick]

Hi John,

Thanks for your feedback and background information.

I think, we are on the same page. I am concerned with quality too, while
mapping should remain enjoyable.

We shied away from JOSM for newbies because it seemed more technical to
my groups members. I personally like JOSM better, and the building
plug-in is great. Maybe I manage to convince the group to use it next time.

I did not intend to call for experienced mappers to do all the
validation (I know it is tedious; however, correcting and esp. updating
makes OSM great and in some place much better than the official
sources). I think, that the group who initiated the mapping should
'clean up after themselves' (and I just wanted to affirm that we will do
that). I just wanted to express gratitude to mappers how do help out.

Once I am more into it, I am happy to help out validating other's work.

I did not mean to cheery pick when I quoted the validation website (I
very much appreciate the wiki page). I just wanted to make a point about
timing.

Regarding Canada, as a geographer I am fully aware of the fact Canada
having relatively less population, however, it has still almost half of
the population of Germany and the urban areas, which most of OSM mappers
are concerned with, might be relatively (to population) similar in size
(that's just a guess). I would have to run a query now to find out if
the relative number of active mappers is higher in one country than the
other, but that's not my point. The relative numbers do not matter, as
actual people do the mapping. And there, I hope we agree, the Canadian
OSM community could do with more active mappers.

Tim


Am 23.11.2017 um 07:54 schrieb john whelan:
The issue is the quality of the mapping, nothing else. I attended one of
these geoweek events and we used JOSM with the building_tool plugin. 
The mapping of buildings was accurate even though 75% of the mappers had
never used JOSM before.  There was no formal validation done but I
verified each mappers work as they did it.  I got the impression that
the mappers enjoyed the exercise and I think for me that was the most
important thing.  Mapping should be fun.

There was no mention of the work would be validated nor did we record
the mappers userids to ensure which mappers had mapped.  Other mappers
had marked tiles done on the grid.

I was under the impression that Stats Canada was involved but was later
assured by them that this was not the case.

The problem of lots of new mappers producing low quality work really
reared its head during the Nepal crisis.  I do mainly validation on HOT
projects in Africa and I ended up pulling in chunks of Africa and just
trying to clean up the map.  Currently I'm looking at one mapper who has
added more than a thousand ways with one tag I think it says
source=PGS.  Data quality is a major issue in OpenStreetMap.  Recently
someone gave up when looking for area=yes or buildings drawn in iD but
left untagged for the most part.  I think in Europe it was 100,000 or
more worldwide it was far higher and that's when the person looking at
it gave up.

There are many examples in Africa of groups of buildings being mapped as
one building and labelled building=house.  That's what we are trying to
avoid.  It is possible to correctly map a building in iD I've seen it
done but it takes time.  It is far easier to sort of roughly get it
right and roughly means not accurately.  I think the thing we need to
avoid is a feeling the mapper needs to get a tile done. That's when they
start to rush things.

Building validation?  I can think of no validator who enjoys having to
take two or three times longer to correct someones's work than it would
take them to map it in JOSM with the building_tool in the first place. 
I'm unable to even think of a case where a project has been validated
and the buildings corrected.  When I validate I'm trying to correct the
mapper's work and give them feedback so they will map more accurately in
future.  There is no point in doing this to someone who will map once. 
It's a waste of my time.

The wiki page you pointed to, I wrote much of it. the most important
part which you skipped is feedback from a user. 


  Why do we validate?

“OpenStreetMap is often the only source of maps, but the data quality is
very uneven.  I wish they’d put their more experienced mappers onto
validation.”  This is a quote from an individual who used OpenStreetMap
data (HOT) in the field.

Note the comment the data quality is very uneven and that's what we are
trying to address.  Your particular maperthon may have produced good
work, my lot certainly did but many mappers using the tag did not and
that is the issue.

By the way we do have fewer mappers per square kilometre than Germany
does and we have used CANVEC data to get a basic road network in.  In
Ottawa we've used Open Data to bring in the bus stops. The basic
Canadian map isn't bad but if we had as many mappers per square
kilometre as Germany does then no doubt it

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping buildings in Canada by 2020

[john whelan]

The issue is the quality of the mapping, nothing else. I attended one of
these geoweek events and we used JOSM with the building_tool plugin.  The
mapping of buildings was accurate even though 75% of the mappers had never
used JOSM before.  There was no formal validation done but I verified each
mappers work as they did it.  I got the impression that the mappers enjoyed
the exercise and I think for me that was the most important thing.  Mapping
should be fun.

There was no mention of the work would be validated nor did we record the
mappers userids to ensure which mappers had mapped.  Other mappers had
marked tiles done on the grid.

I was under the impression that Stats Canada was involved but was later
assured by them that this was not the case.

The problem of lots of new mappers producing low quality work really reared
its head during the Nepal crisis.  I do mainly validation on HOT projects
in Africa and I ended up pulling in chunks of Africa and just trying to
clean up the map.  Currently I'm looking at one mapper who has added more
than a thousand ways with one tag I think it says source=PGS.  Data quality
is a major issue in OpenStreetMap.  Recently someone gave up when looking
for area=yes or buildings drawn in iD but left untagged for the most part.
I think in Europe it was 100,000 or more worldwide it was far higher and
that's when the person looking at it gave up.

There are many examples in Africa of groups of buildings being mapped as
one building and labelled building=house.  That's what we are trying to
avoid.  It is possible to correctly map a building in iD I've seen it done
but it takes time.  It is far easier to sort of roughly get it right and
roughly means not accurately.  I think the thing we need to avoid is a
feeling the mapper needs to get a tile done. That's when they start to rush
things.

Building validation?  I can think of no validator who enjoys having to take
two or three times longer to correct someones's work than it would take
them to map it in JOSM with the building_tool in the first place.  I'm
unable to even think of a case where a project has been validated and the
buildings corrected.  When I validate I'm trying to correct the mapper's
work and give them feedback so they will map more accurately in future.
There is no point in doing this to someone who will map once.  It's a waste
of my time.

The wiki page you pointed to, I wrote much of it. the most important part
which you skipped is feedback from a user.

Why do we validate?

“OpenStreetMap is often the only source of maps, but the data quality is
very uneven.  I wish they’d put their more experienced mappers onto
validation.”  This is a quote from an individual who used OpenStreetMap
data (HOT) in the field.
Note the comment the data quality is very uneven and that's what we are
trying to address.  Your particular maperthon may have produced good work,
my lot certainly did but many mappers using the tag did not and that is the
issue.

By the way we do have fewer mappers per square kilometre than Germany does
and we have used CANVEC data to get a basic road network in.  In Ottawa
we've used Open Data to bring in the bus stops. The basic Canadian map
isn't bad but if we had as many mappers per square kilometre as Germany
does then no doubt it would be better.  Our population density is also
lower by the way if you hadn't noticed.

Cheerio John

On 22 November 2017 at 21:28, Tim Elrick  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> As you know Open Mapping Group McGill (OMG McGill) organized one of the
> mapathons last week for the town of Williams Lake, BC. For the turnout
> please turn to Julia's website published earlier today on the list.
>
> As a mentor of the group I might be the 'director' of this event
> according to the proposed policy by the OSMF board. In this role, I want
> to assure you that we tried to do our best to teach new mappers how to
> do their job properly, as Charles stated on this list yesterday. And
> judging from a preliminary analysis of the data I conducted with the
> overpass api, the participants did a pretty good job.
>
> Of course, the data needs validation, which we will conduct in the next
> couple of days. However, I do not see the rush proposed on this list
> earlier. Ideally, validation would happen right after the mapping event
> (as set out in this manual for HOT tasks [1]). In the real world, we all
> have our jobs, families and other voluntary engagements, that sometimes
> do not allow to act accordingly. I further think it is not even
> necessary for tasks that are not related to immediate disaster response
> or include ways tagged with a highway tag (in the later case it might
> confuse navigation apps if not validated right away). In many cases,
> validation, or better, correction of data entered by individual mappers
> (not part of group events) was (and still is) done many days or even
> months after the data was entered, depending on whether an experienced
> mapper has an eye on a certai