#ValidationFriday - June 7

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

#ValidationFriday - June 7

Matthew Gibb
Hi all,

With some renewed effort, we'd like to revive #ValidationFriday, a way to encourage validation of projects in the HOT Tasking Manager. In essence, #ValidationFriday reminds everyone to set aside some time each week, be it 15 minutes or an hour, to validate.

For encouragement, there are over 100 projects which have over 95% complete and 95% validated. There's a lot that can be completed with some additional dedicated effort every week! There are many more that would benefit from a focused Validation effort.

Each week, we'll share some of these projects that are near completion to help focus efforts toward projects that could use some attention:

5505-Kiryandongo District, Uganda [1]
5569-Post-Disaster Mapping in Brgy Uling and Brgy. Pangdan, Naga City, Cebu [2]
5678-Thailand Malaria Elimination: Ubon-Ratchathani Border [3]
5691-Tanzania missing buildings Monduli District, Arusha [4]

How else can you participate in #ValidationFriday?
- Validate! Simply find a project and dive in!
- Learn to validate. There are a number of resources available for validation, but a great place to start is on the Missing Maps website [5]
- Request the Validator Role on the HOT Tasking manager [6]
- Share #ValidationFriday on social media to encourage others to contribute to projects
- Join the validation conversation! Reach out to your fellow HOT Mappers, either through mailing lists, IRC, or the HOT Slack community (slack.hotosm.org).

Setting some time aside each week is a small effort, and not something that will fully complete the backlog of un-validated projects, but at the end of the day, we need to remain good stewards of OSM in all areas of our work.

Happy #ValidationFriday, and happy mapping!

Best,

Matt
"Giblet"

[1] https://tasks.hotosm.org/project/5505
[2] https://tasks.hotosm.org/project/5569
[3] https://tasks.hotosm.org/project/5678
[4] https://tasks.hotosm.org/project/5691
[5] http://www.missingmaps.org/validate/
[6] http://bit.ly/HOTValidators

--
Matthew Gibb

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #ValidationFriday - June 7

Jean-Marc Liotier
On 2019-06-07 04:52, Matthew Gibb wrote:

> - Validate! Simply find a project and dive in!

While http://www.missingmaps.org/validate/ and
http://www.missingmaps.org/assets/downloads/MissingMaps_validation_josm_en.pdf
offer practical instructions on how to begin about the validation
business, I feel a gap in guidance on what happens after invalidation. The
advice about how to express constructive criticism in comments is a good
start, but then what ? Even the Organised Editing guidelines only mention
"_plans for a "post-event clean up" to validate edits,
especially if the activity introduces new contributors to
OpenStreetMap_" but omit details.

The contributor is an ephemeral drive-by account set for a mapathon, the
contributor isn't aware of his Openstreeetmap inbox, the contributor
doesn't care that much about quality, the contributor understands that his
changeset doesn't satisfy quality expectations but has no idea how to
proceed... There are many reasons but the common result is that a
validation comment will lead to no action at all: most contributors of bad
data do not clean-up after themselves.

Some projects, such as
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Trains_of_Botswana_mapathon
have clear plans: _"A few days after the event, the core team will look at
the common QA tools (OSMI, Osmose, Keepright) to repair anything that
might have slipped through the cracks_" - but foisting janitorial
responsibilities upon experts doesn't scale: as much as some enjoy
strolling in the garden and pulling the occasional weed, it is not a
popular hobby. Worse, those rare resources spent correcting bad data may
easily make the net value negative.

I do not have a solution, but I wish to stress one observation: the
further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an
onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality
rather than quantity might be a step in that direction.
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

untitled-[2].html (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #ValidationFriday - June 7

Matthew Gibb
Hi Jean-Marc,

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

I agree with:

> the further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality rather than quantity might be a step in that direction.

There are a whole host of steps that can and are being taken: from improved project manager onboarding, ensuring validation plans like you mentioned, and improvements to the tasking manager.

To your point, I agree that feedback to a mapper on a project that hasn't been touched in a year will have no impact on a new (at that point) mapper who hasn't seen it, but if there happened to be lower quality data there, there's still a benefit to making sure it's addressed and improved.

I think most would agree that there's not a one-size-fits-all solution, encouraging some more mappers to take a crack at validation if they haven't before is a piece of the puzzle though.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Matt

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:27 AM Jean-Marc Liotier <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 2019-06-07 04:52, Matthew Gibb wrote:

> - Validate! Simply find a project and dive in!

While http://www.missingmaps.org/validate/ and
http://www.missingmaps.org/assets/downloads/MissingMaps_validation_josm_en.pdf
offer practical instructions on how to begin about the validation
business, I feel a gap in guidance on what happens after invalidation. The
advice about how to express constructive criticism in comments is a good
start, but then what ? Even the Organised Editing guidelines only mention
"_plans for a "post-event clean up" to validate edits,
especially if the activity introduces new contributors to
OpenStreetMap_" but omit details.

The contributor is an ephemeral drive-by account set for a mapathon, the
contributor isn't aware of his Openstreeetmap inbox, the contributor
doesn't care that much about quality, the contributor understands that his
changeset doesn't satisfy quality expectations but has no idea how to
proceed... There are many reasons but the common result is that a
validation comment will lead to no action at all: most contributors of bad
data do not clean-up after themselves.

Some projects, such as
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Trains_of_Botswana_mapathon
have clear plans: _"A few days after the event, the core team will look at
the common QA tools (OSMI, Osmose, Keepright) to repair anything that
might have slipped through the cracks_" - but foisting janitorial
responsibilities upon experts doesn't scale: as much as some enjoy
strolling in the garden and pulling the occasional weed, it is not a
popular hobby. Worse, those rare resources spent correcting bad data may
easily make the net value negative.

I do not have a solution, but I wish to stress one observation: the
further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an
onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality
rather than quantity might be a step in that direction._______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


--
Matthew Gibb
(518) 791-8505

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #ValidationFriday - June 7

john whelan-2
If you catch the problems early enough then the mapper gets both feedback and corrected.  Experimentally the impact drops off very quickly.  So catch them within the hour and they change how they map and usually map a bit more.  After a week it's not worth the effort of giving feedback.

From a practical point of view there are tools that can be used to clean up large areas at a time without using the task manager.  Downloading a chunk of OSM then running a script to detect duplicate buildings means you can cover an entire country very quickly the same is true for highway=road name=Hameau, crossing highways, untagged ways etc.   Scrolling through the downloaded data with JOSM <crtl><down arrow> can pick up unmapped settlements, unconnected highways, and other oddites.  Don't delete anything before redownloading the small area first to make sure you have exactly what is on the live map.

Validating mapping that is three months old just so the box gets ticked seems a worthless exercise to me but if you really want to waste time and put people off validating then ask them to validate buildings.  It can take two clicks in JOSM to draw a building with the buildings_tool plugin.  It takes a lot longer to correct each misshaped building.  HOT needs to use a building tool for mapping.  If you must use iD then spend some money and get it added to iD.

Cheerio John

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 08:07, Matthew Gibb <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Jean-Marc,

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

I agree with:

> the further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality rather than quantity might be a step in that direction.

There are a whole host of steps that can and are being taken: from improved project manager onboarding, ensuring validation plans like you mentioned, and improvements to the tasking manager.

To your point, I agree that feedback to a mapper on a project that hasn't been touched in a year will have no impact on a new (at that point) mapper who hasn't seen it, but if there happened to be lower quality data there, there's still a benefit to making sure it's addressed and improved.

I think most would agree that there's not a one-size-fits-all solution, encouraging some more mappers to take a crack at validation if they haven't before is a piece of the puzzle though.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Matt

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:27 AM Jean-Marc Liotier <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 2019-06-07 04:52, Matthew Gibb wrote:

> - Validate! Simply find a project and dive in!

While http://www.missingmaps.org/validate/ and
http://www.missingmaps.org/assets/downloads/MissingMaps_validation_josm_en.pdf
offer practical instructions on how to begin about the validation
business, I feel a gap in guidance on what happens after invalidation. The
advice about how to express constructive criticism in comments is a good
start, but then what ? Even the Organised Editing guidelines only mention
"_plans for a "post-event clean up" to validate edits,
especially if the activity introduces new contributors to
OpenStreetMap_" but omit details.

The contributor is an ephemeral drive-by account set for a mapathon, the
contributor isn't aware of his Openstreeetmap inbox, the contributor
doesn't care that much about quality, the contributor understands that his
changeset doesn't satisfy quality expectations but has no idea how to
proceed... There are many reasons but the common result is that a
validation comment will lead to no action at all: most contributors of bad
data do not clean-up after themselves.

Some projects, such as
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Trains_of_Botswana_mapathon
have clear plans: _"A few days after the event, the core team will look at
the common QA tools (OSMI, Osmose, Keepright) to repair anything that
might have slipped through the cracks_" - but foisting janitorial
responsibilities upon experts doesn't scale: as much as some enjoy
strolling in the garden and pulling the occasional weed, it is not a
popular hobby. Worse, those rare resources spent correcting bad data may
easily make the net value negative.

I do not have a solution, but I wish to stress one observation: the
further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an
onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality
rather than quantity might be a step in that direction._______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


--
Matthew Gibb
(518) 791-8505
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #ValidationFriday - June 7

Matthew Gibb
John,
There are absolutely many more efficient ways to clean up large areas of data. I know you've shared a number of times on this list, widespread issues which you've come across; do you have these collected on a wiki page or other document somewhere? That could be a good way to share knowledge related to validating large areas in JOSM.

Personally, I want to see #ValidationFriday as a way to promote validation however users see fit, be that learning to validate, giving feedback to a new mapper (on a recently mapped task), polishing up a recent or older project, or continuing to validate as they have for years...it can even be sharing tried and tested workflows or tips and tricks.

Happy validating,

Matt

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:42 AM john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:
If you catch the problems early enough then the mapper gets both feedback and corrected.  Experimentally the impact drops off very quickly.  So catch them within the hour and they change how they map and usually map a bit more.  After a week it's not worth the effort of giving feedback.

From a practical point of view there are tools that can be used to clean up large areas at a time without using the task manager.  Downloading a chunk of OSM then running a script to detect duplicate buildings means you can cover an entire country very quickly the same is true for highway=road name=Hameau, crossing highways, untagged ways etc.   Scrolling through the downloaded data with JOSM <crtl><down arrow> can pick up unmapped settlements, unconnected highways, and other oddites.  Don't delete anything before redownloading the small area first to make sure you have exactly what is on the live map.

Validating mapping that is three months old just so the box gets ticked seems a worthless exercise to me but if you really want to waste time and put people off validating then ask them to validate buildings.  It can take two clicks in JOSM to draw a building with the buildings_tool plugin.  It takes a lot longer to correct each misshaped building.  HOT needs to use a building tool for mapping.  If you must use iD then spend some money and get it added to iD.

Cheerio John

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 08:07, Matthew Gibb <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Jean-Marc,

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

I agree with:

> the further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality rather than quantity might be a step in that direction.

There are a whole host of steps that can and are being taken: from improved project manager onboarding, ensuring validation plans like you mentioned, and improvements to the tasking manager.

To your point, I agree that feedback to a mapper on a project that hasn't been touched in a year will have no impact on a new (at that point) mapper who hasn't seen it, but if there happened to be lower quality data there, there's still a benefit to making sure it's addressed and improved.

I think most would agree that there's not a one-size-fits-all solution, encouraging some more mappers to take a crack at validation if they haven't before is a piece of the puzzle though.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Matt

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:27 AM Jean-Marc Liotier <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 2019-06-07 04:52, Matthew Gibb wrote:

> - Validate! Simply find a project and dive in!

While http://www.missingmaps.org/validate/ and
http://www.missingmaps.org/assets/downloads/MissingMaps_validation_josm_en.pdf
offer practical instructions on how to begin about the validation
business, I feel a gap in guidance on what happens after invalidation. The
advice about how to express constructive criticism in comments is a good
start, but then what ? Even the Organised Editing guidelines only mention
"_plans for a "post-event clean up" to validate edits,
especially if the activity introduces new contributors to
OpenStreetMap_" but omit details.

The contributor is an ephemeral drive-by account set for a mapathon, the
contributor isn't aware of his Openstreeetmap inbox, the contributor
doesn't care that much about quality, the contributor understands that his
changeset doesn't satisfy quality expectations but has no idea how to
proceed... There are many reasons but the common result is that a
validation comment will lead to no action at all: most contributors of bad
data do not clean-up after themselves.

Some projects, such as
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Trains_of_Botswana_mapathon
have clear plans: _"A few days after the event, the core team will look at
the common QA tools (OSMI, Osmose, Keepright) to repair anything that
might have slipped through the cracks_" - but foisting janitorial
responsibilities upon experts doesn't scale: as much as some enjoy
strolling in the garden and pulling the occasional weed, it is not a
popular hobby. Worse, those rare resources spent correcting bad data may
easily make the net value negative.

I do not have a solution, but I wish to stress one observation: the
further upstream the quality assurance, the cheaper it is. I feel that an
onboarding environment (both technical and social) that glorifies quality
rather than quantity might be a step in that direction._______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


--
Matthew Gibb
(518) 791-8505
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


--
Matthew Gibb
(518) 791-8505

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot