Perhaps a way forward at the moment would be to open the task manager up so the tiles imported so far can be validated.
Having lived with computers for many years I'm in total agreement, they work very quickly but have no common sense what so ever. Cheerio John On Sat, Jan 26, 2019, 1:56 PM Nate Wessel <bike...@gmail.com wrote: > Getting a clear idea of what needs to be fixed is what validation is all > about. Having a second set of eyes look through everyone's imported data in > a systematic way will give us ideas for what we need to fix moving forward. > It can't be just a matter of looking at a bunch of automated validation > script outputs and issuing a checkmark. Machines can do that - us humans > can do better, and that's a big part of the beauty of OSM: the human > element. > > If I may be permitted a tangent, I was fairly troubled at the last State > of the Map US conference that the focus of attention seemed to have turned > to a surprising degree toward "what cool things can machines do with data" > from the focus I saw in earlier years, which was much more "how can we get > more people engaged?". Machines don't make quality data - only consistent > errors. I'm glad the big tech companies were buying us all beers (there was > soooo much free beer...) but we shouldn't adopt their narrow focus on labor > efficiency and automation. I don't think efficiency is why we are all here. > > ... > > I was going to address some of your other points, but I think my little > digression actually highlighted some of the differences in the way we seem > to be approaching all of these issues. I'm not a fan of automation and > efficiency at the cost of quality (in this context), while that is a > compromise you and others seem willing to make. We may not be able to talk > our way out of that difference of opinion; the root of the issue is likely > just a different vision of OSM and why we each care about it. > Nate Wessel > Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning > NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com> > > On 1/26/19 12:48 PM, Danny McDonald wrote: > > 1. In terms of validation, it would be helpful to have a clear idea of > what sorts of problems need to be fixed. I have re-validated almost all of > the areas I imported (and all of them in Central Toronto), and fixed all of > the building related errors/warnings I found (with a few exceptions) there > weren't many errors, and many pre-dated the import. The only JOSM warning > I didn't fix is "Crossing building/residential area". Yaro's and John's > areas don't seem to have many errors either, although there a few isolated > "Crossing building/highway" warnings (and some "building duplicated nodes" > errors). I have also split big retail buildings in dense areas. > 2. I'm fine with simplification, I think we should just do it. In terms > of orthogonalization, I don't understand why non-orthogonal buildings are a > problem. If they are, JOSM allows them to be auto-fixed. > 3. I agree that the task manager squares are too big in central Toronto. > A separate task can be created for central Toronto only, with smaller > squares. I think the square size is fine outside of Toronto, as long as > the squares are split appropriately. > 4. In terms of conflation, I agree that deleting and re-adding buildings > is not desirable, but I don't agree that that means it should never be > done, no matter the time cost. The ideal solution here is some sort of > script/plugin that auto-merges new and recently added buildings - > basically, an iterated "replace geometry". > DannyMcD > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing > listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
