Humanitarian OSM Team/Meetings/TrainingWG/23 November 2015

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. hot: HOT Training WG

Meeting started by TomT5454 at 20:05:00 UTC. The full logs are available at .

Meeting summary

  • Quickstart status (TomT5454, 20:14:03)
 * LINK:  (bhousel,
  • Translation workflow (TomT5454, 20:54:56)
 * LINK:
   (TomT5454, 20:57:41)
  • Changeset comments (TomT5454, 21:09:03)
 * LINK:
   (TomT5454, 21:29:06)
  • Guide to organizing a mapathon (TomT5454, 21:31:42)
  • Guide to creating a TM project (TomT5454, 21:37:49)
  • Other business (TomT5454, 21:48:46)
  • Next meeting (TomT5454, 21:50:03)

Meeting ended at 21:58:04 UTC.

People present (lines said)

  • SteveBower (70)
  • TomT5454 (62)
  • SuzanReed (59)
  • BlakeGirardot (57)
  • RAytoun (53)
  • althio (21)
  • Johnwhelan (13)
  • bhousel (6)
  • hot_meetbot` (3)

Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

20:05:00 <TomT5454> #startmeeting HOT Training WG
20:05:00 <hot_meetbot`> Meeting started Mon Nov 23 20:05:00 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is TomT5454. Information about MeetBot at
20:05:00 <hot_meetbot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:05:00 <hot_meetbot`> The meeting name has been set to 'hot_training_wg'
20:05:00 <RAytoun> Yes, That is something that is unavoidable
20:05:19 <SuzanReed> First, I would like you all to know I am taking a medication that is making it difficult for me to think clearly.
20:05:44 <SteveBower> ooof - sorry to hear that Suzan, but hope it's working as needed
20:05:48 <Johnwhelan> Whisky for my cold hasthe same effect
20:06:04 <RAytoun> Wow Suzan, that is a great opening line, I must remember it
20:06:23 <SteveBower> World events are having that effect on me...
20:06:29 <SuzanReed> Yea. It’s like Whisky. And that is my apology for the mistakes in the PDF!
20:07:27 <TomT5454> My ignorance of iD is such that I'm looking forward to seeing it fleshed out
20:07:48 <BlakeGirardot> I am here, but listening in mostly, have a proposal to finish before the end of the day.
20:08:04 <SuzanReed> I am quite adept at iD as I’ve had a lot of difficulty getting JOSM to work on my new computer.
20:08:31 <SuzanReed> Therefore I didn’t know JOSM has different terms for various bits.
20:08:40 <TomT5454> Proposed agenda is at
20:08:42 <SuzanReed> I have an idea on how to fix that.
20:09:30 <TomT5454> John, I remembered to add your suggestion on a how-to-organize mapathons document
20:10:13 <SteveBower> Agenda looks good
20:10:36 <RAytoun> Agenda looks fine
20:10:49 <SuzanReed> We have a lot to cover.
20:11:48 <TomT5454> Agenda approved
20:12:02 <TomT5454> Last meeting minutes
20:12:06 <SteveBower> The 9 Nov minutes look good to me
20:13:08 <SuzanReed> I was not there. Can’t approve.
20:13:12 <TomT5454> OK, minutes approved/
20:13:24 <RAytoun> The minutes are fine
20:14:03 <TomT5454> #topic Quickstart status
20:14:49 <SteveBower> Nice to see the draft, Suzan. And your's, Tom. Thanks for putting those together.
20:14:51 <SuzanReed> I would like us to look at this from five miles up.
20:15:09 <TomT5454> For those not clear, I sent out my draft, then Suzan told me she had already done a lot of work. Since she is the professional, I defer to her
20:15:11 <SuzanReed> Yes Tom. Very good thinking.
20:15:28 <SuzanReed> I am not a professional mapper!
20:15:36 <SteveBower> @Tom: yep. But was helpful seeing yours as well, for ideas.
20:16:11 <SuzanReed> First we need to agree we are doing a quick start on iD, not on OSM in general.
20:16:16 <SteveBower> Having Suzan's draft makes it much easier to get the 5-mile-up perspective. My thoughts have changed on that.
20:16:27 <SteveBower> @Suzan: yes
20:16:42 <SuzanReed> This is what Blake asked from me. However, Ralph disagreed. So we need to agree on one or the other.
20:17:02 <SteveBower> that is, a Quick Start on iD and what's needed to do HOT TM mapping
20:17:16 <SuzanReed> Yes.
20:17:19 <SteveBower> What would "the other" be?
20:17:53 <SuzanReed> An overview on mapping in OSM, not HOT. And what I wrote for iD is basically for HOT, one could argue.
20:18:30 <SteveBower> My thoughts have changed on the goal - can I explain now?
20:18:38 <RAytoun> Actually I agree with what Suzan is doing, it is relevant to getting mappers styarted in HOT
20:18:58 <SteveBower> I agree too
20:19:24 <SteveBower> Our plan was to create a “quick start” guide that would serve both HOT mappers and general OSM mappers. Then we would revise existing LearnOSM material to build from that introductory piece.
20:19:37 <SuzanReed> What are your thoughts, Tom? Your submission was much more OSM.
20:19:46 <SteveBower> But after reviewing Suzan’s draft “Learn OSM 30 mins”, Tom’s draft Quick Start Guide, and current LearnOSM beginner material, I think we should change our strategy.
20:19:59 <SteveBower> The HOT TM functions are so specific and limited in scope that I think we need a completely separate quick-start guide, and the existing LearnOSM material should generally remain as is.
20:20:33 <Johnwhelan> I also think that HOT ismuch more specific
20:20:43 <SteveBower> Seeing Suzan's draft clarified that for me. I like what you've got so far, Suzan, but it won't work to fit general OSM beginner material around it.
20:21:14 <TomT5454> I plead guilty to all the verbosity sSuzan warned against, but I think the OSM mapper needs to know most of the stuff I've written.
20:21:35 <SteveBower> When I say "the HOT TM functions", I mean what a new mapper needs to know - not the TM functionality
20:21:39 <RAytoun> Steve ... What I was pointing out to Suzan is that is not possible. The OSM entry to mapping is through the OSM page, the entry to HOT is thtough the Tasking Manager.
20:21:42 <Johnwhelan> I think the big problem is mapper turnover in HOT therefore you need something very simple
20:21:42 <SuzanReed> It is very specific to learning iD, the TM for HOT. It is for beginning HOT mappers so they don’t make a mess we have to clean up.
20:23:05 <SuzanReed> My goal was to make it very simple. Very quick to sccan.
20:23:13 <althio> Hi everyone, long time no see!
20:23:19 <SteveBower> @Ralph - I thought we could deal with that if needed, but I don't think it's needed
20:23:35 <BlakeGirardot> hi althio
20:23:40 <SteveBower> hey althio
20:23:44 <SuzanReed> Hi Ben!
20:23:55 <RAytoun> Hi Althio
20:24:00 <TomT5454> Make LearnOSM two-headed at the top? Probably not a good policy
20:24:02 <BlakeGirardot> I have to say, I like both Tom's and Suzan's documents
20:24:13 <BlakeGirardot> although they are different in nature
20:24:22 <SuzanReed> I like Tom’s document, too!
20:24:32 <SuzanReed> We took different paths.
20:24:36 <RAytoun> Nick also mentioned that split approach at the beginning od LearnOSM
20:24:38 <BlakeGirardot> I also thought RAytoun and I were in agreement :)
20:25:10 <RAytoun> Blake +1
20:26:17 <RAytoun> Suzan's draft is short and precise and definitely will help the beginner Hottie
20:26:34 <SuzanReed> So. Is this Learn to map in six steps on the right track?
20:26:55 <SuzanReed> I would like consensus before going forward.
20:27:06 <SteveBower> I do think we shouldn't over-simplify the Quick Start (QS) guide. These are mainly new remote mappers with no one to easily ask for help. We need to balance adding new mappers with maintaining quality, and minimizing re-work. (Devil's advocate here.)
20:27:17 <RAytoun> Blake's precise 'Instructions' in the Tasking Manager will compliment that
20:27:19 <TomT5454> Definitely on the right track for HOT
20:27:54 <RAytoun> +1 for that Tom
20:27:54 <SuzanReed> So Steve, do you think it’s too simple?
20:27:59 <SteveBower> Yes, on the right track. More concise than I expected, but similar to the level of guidance one gets at a mapathon
20:28:48 <SuzanReed> What would you add, Steve? Remembering people don’t want many words or a long learning process.
20:28:51 <RAytoun> Once Suzan starts to beef out the content it will look better and not quite as slim
20:28:58 <BlakeGirardot> I do not think it is too simple and I think it is on the right track Suzan
20:29:06 <SteveBower> In some respects I think it's too simple, but little things that may be covered after adding links to other resources
20:29:26 <SteveBower> But new mappers may not go to those linked resources
20:29:31 <SuzanReed> I’m not sure that’s correct, Ralph. I meant it to be a very quick read.
20:29:42 <SteveBower> There should be some emphasis on the need for quality, and to ask for help if not sure what to do
20:30:07 <SuzanReed> That’s a good point, Steve. Easy to add!
20:30:08 <SteveBower> And hints like how to square buildings ("s"), how to change the imagery brightness (default is too low for most imagery), etc.
20:30:39 <BlakeGirardot> I agree Steve, new mappers are not going to go to a lot of other resources and they are not going to read a lot to learn to map unfortunately. I was really hoping something like what Suzan is creating
20:30:59 <BlakeGirardot> would be short and simple enough to get them going and we can encourage them to find out more.
20:31:07 <SuzanReed> I did not add how to square and it was a mistake. It’s in my first draft.
20:31:12 <RAytoun> That is what I was referring to Suzan, not adding more but refining what is there
20:31:36 <BlakeGirardot> find out more later I mean to say
20:31:55 <SteveBower> And it can complement the task instructions, if we can get all task instructions to be more detailed, like Blake's template
20:31:57 <BlakeGirardot> but I thought what I heard was a lot of people wanted to get started mapping "now"
20:32:06 <SuzanReed> At the end there’s an area for links and references. That would be a good place to add a paragraph on how important it is to ask for help, and to learn more.
20:32:29 <SuzanReed> I also think there should be a reference to quality mapping up above, in the beginning.
20:32:33 <RAytoun> Steve, I had thought of that and I will suggest this to the Activation Working Group
20:32:41 <Johnwhelan> Would one approach simply to be to teach them how to map a road and a settlement?
20:32:53 <BlakeGirardot> I really defer to Ralph for most of the guidence on it, and was hoping I was following his guidence on it so far. Ralph talks to dozens of new mappers every month.
20:32:54 <SteveBower> @John: yes
20:33:21 <SteveBower> I think the QS could be refined to be more specific to roads, buildings, residential areas
20:33:34 <SuzanReed> @john yes
20:33:39 <RAytoun> The new mappers need to get started before they find out what they do not know
20:33:52 <SuzanReed> @ralph yes
20:33:56 <Johnwhelan> I suggest reserving buildings to JOSM and the building tool
20:34:05 <RAytoun> Then they can go back to the links to find that out
20:34:05 <BlakeGirardot> It may not be directly useful to Ralph as he is there with people, but I assume what he hears from them is what people at home are saying/doing.
20:34:19 <SteveBower> @John: iD works fine for buildings now - not as good as JOSM, but it's been enhanced
20:34:30 <SuzanReed> Making buidings in iD is easy, though. I can make hundreds in an hour.
20:35:02 <SteveBower> You can draw buildings with >4 corners, and square them with the "s" key
20:35:13 <Johnwhelan> I just see the end result whilst validating and some buildings are not pretty
20:35:33 <SuzanReed> Yes. The process of making a building and sqaring it is very fast.
20:35:56 <RAytoun> I also did not see a problem with buildings in iD
20:36:23 <RAytoun> The only point is to remember to square them
20:36:25 <SuzanReed> John much prefers JOSM.
20:37:02 <SuzanReed> I left it out. My mistake. Like I said, I am not thinking clearly. I can’t drive or use knives, either.
20:37:18 <SuzanReed> I’m taking medication that’s serioulsy messing with my mind.
20:37:23 <TomT5454> @Suzan you said you had a solution in mind for the terminology problem?
20:37:27 <RAytoun> Is it possible to create a 'building Tool' in iD?
20:37:57 <Johnwhelan> I think you often prefer the tool you first use. For me JOSM is quick does validation on the upload and has the building tool.
20:38:01 <SuzanReed> The current Area tool works great for making buildings.
20:38:06 <RAytoun> That would solve the squaring problem
20:38:07 <SteveBower> Would be good to add how to tag features - outline the steps for doing it the first time in JOSM (after that it's quite routine). And to refer to the task instructions for the correct tags to use, esp. for roads.
20:38:17 <bhousel> RAytoun: I did create a building tool for iD, I just have to finish up the code
20:38:36 <SuzanReed> Tom, I do have a solution in mind for clarifiying the terms. The QS will need to say
20:38:39 <SteveBower> JOSM building tool is faster and more full-featured than iD, but iD is almost as fast for most buildings
20:38:46 <bhousel>
20:38:52 <SuzanReed> “this is for iD” in the beginning.
20:38:58 <RAytoun> Thanks bhousel. That will make life agreat deal easier.
20:39:24 <SteveBower> @bhousel - nice!
20:39:31 <BlakeGirardot> that would be amazing bhousel, please let us know if we can help with testing or anything.
20:40:01 <Johnwhelan> I've noticed highway=cycleway in the middle of Africa can we customise the iD interface to just those things we need?
20:40:14 <SuzanReed> Now that is truly beautiful, bhousel
20:40:15 <bhousel> while I have your attention - do you have any preference on whether this building tool should be a toggleable mode , or is it ok to just capture Shift-drag for now?
20:40:44 <RAytoun> Brilliant piece of work. Let us know when it can be up and running . Suzan, we need to add this to the iD Quick Start
20:40:49 <SuzanReed> @John, that would be ideal, if the TM could be customized for each project!
20:40:51 <bhousel> also would you ever want to see iD draw other building shapes like circles.. like huts? seems like useful for some HOT things
20:40:56 <althio> great job bhousel
20:41:35 <RAytoun> There is the rounding function in iD but it creates far too many nodes in the circle
20:41:38 <TomT5454> Circles are definitiely a would-be-nice item
20:41:40 <SuzanReed> It woud be great to draw circles and complex building shapes, too.
20:41:42 <althio> iD can already draw circles, doesn't it?
20:42:07 <althio> shortcut O
20:42:12 <SteveBower> For terminology I suggest sticking with point/line/area for consistency with iD, but add that the general OSM terms are "node" for a point or a point long a line, and "way" for a line (as in highway, railway, travelway).
20:42:14 <SuzanReed> It’s “draw a triangle, then make it a circle one of two ways that are not obvious.
20:42:14 <bhousel> althio: yes but you have to draw the square first and then circularize it… a circle drawing mode could do it in like one click
20:43:00 <SuzanReed> Drawing circles for a beginner is tricky.
20:43:26 <althio> I thought you could do a diameter and press O, so 2 clicks and 1 key
20:43:27 <SuzanReed> It was for me. I’m your beginner with only seven months mapping.
20:43:36 <RAytoun> The quick draw in iD means you only need three points and then pree o to get a circle
20:44:00 <SuzanReed> We can add that to the QS.
20:44:04 <RAytoun> Sorry that should be press
20:44:28 <bhousel> Anyway i will try to finish up this building drawing mode soon, I do know how important it would be for HOT building tracing.. thanks for being patient :)
20:45:03 <althio> on your question: toggleable would be nice
20:45:10 <TomT5454> OK, summing up so far, Suzan's draft is definitely on the right track for HOT.
20:45:19 <RAytoun> +1
20:45:24 <SuzanReed> Remember, we have a lot of other things to discuss. We need to have a consensus on whether the QS PDF is on the right track. If it is, then I suggest we make changes to it outside of this meeting.
20:45:27 <TomT5454> We have details to flesh out.
20:45:42 <RAytoun> You have my approval
20:45:46 <TomT5454> I think we're agreed that buildings are in scope
20:46:28 <SuzanReed> bhousel, the building tool woud be a big help to newbies.
20:47:06 <TomT5454> The nature of the general OSM QS still has to be worked out
20:47:43 <SteveBower> Suzan : I will send more comments on the draft QS via the Training WG mail list
20:48:09 <SteveBower> That is, for all to see
20:48:10 <RAytoun> Tom ... The route into OSM is more direct and the area selection is through the Slippy Map
20:48:13 <SuzanReed> I welcome comments and suggestions.
20:48:13 <BlakeGirardot> Ya, I think Suzan is on the right track. I love how it starts at sign up for osm account, go to tasking manager,
20:48:48 <BlakeGirardot> here is how to make a line and building in iD. Got to it! Read more here: etc etc
20:49:25 <SuzanReed> John, you agree this is a good starting point?
20:49:48 <TomT5454> I think you have consensus
20:49:56 <BlakeGirardot> I would like to see Tom's integrated into LearnOSM, I think it should basically be the next thing people read after they have mapped. Before would be great, but unrealistic :)
20:49:58 <SuzanReed> Good.
20:49:58 <Johnwhelan> Fine by me
20:50:39 <Johnwhelan> My concern was if its intro to OSM then using iD specific terms might not be the best idea
20:50:48 <SuzanReed> I would like to use some of Tom’s words, it that’s OK, Tom.
20:50:57 <Johnwhelan> If its this ishow to map in iD in HOT I'm fine
20:50:57 <TomT5454> Of course
20:51:36 <SuzanReed> We can tweek the copy to tell people they are called different things in OSM and iD.
20:52:00 <SuzanReed> OR is it possible to change iD to fit the rest of the OSM world? That would be ideal.
20:52:29 <SuzanReed> iD is the oddball.
20:52:30 <RAytoun> Sorry Suzan but that is not possible
20:52:40 <SuzanReed> Darn.
20:52:58 <TomT5454> OK, should we look at Nick's report or move to the next item?
20:53:01 <SuzanReed> I can add words to help.
20:53:14 <Johnwhelan> I suspect that OSM uses jargon ie node and way but iD was designed not to use Jargon.
20:53:48 <Johnwhelan> Jargon canbe very helpful in some circumstances but it needs explaining sometimes.
20:54:18 <RAytoun> JOSM does not have a one click Point tool
20:54:27 <SteveBower> Let's review Nick
20:54:34 <SteveBower> s report
20:54:56 <TomT5454> #topic Translation workflow
20:56:30 <SteveBower> I agree there should be a backup for Nick. I think his instructions aren't really enough, unless you're already working in GitHub.
20:56:49 <SteveBower> That is, I think there should be a backup. Up for discussion.
20:56:59 <BlakeGirardot> so
20:57:11 <BlakeGirardot> one thing i learned from nick is that he has some additional documentation
20:57:17 <BlakeGirardot> in his staging repository
20:57:34 <SteveBower> Blake: yes, I reviewed that some time back
20:57:41 <TomT5454> #link
20:58:00 <BlakeGirardot> Ya that is it and other stuff in the wiki there, I had not found it before
20:58:13 <althio> i have not been able to follow all the work from Nick lately
20:58:21 <BlakeGirardot> I also talked to Nick and we are going to move the staging repo to the hotosm/ namespace
20:58:31 <RAytoun> I think overall Nick's work is so extensive that he needs someone to learn what he is doing.
20:58:36 <althio> documentation is great
20:58:58 <BlakeGirardot> and collect his notes on how he has figured things out and we edit them to reflect the staging site under hotosm/ in github
20:59:08 <BlakeGirardot> so anyone who wants to know the full workflow.
20:59:49 <TomT5454> Agreed
20:59:55 <BlakeGirardot> ya, nick is trying to share the workflow he devised as much as possible
21:00:41 <SteveBower> I offered to help Nick out more some time back but didn't have time to jump in. I have time now, so could learn the workflow. So I'll volunteer to give it a go, if no one else steps up.
21:01:03 <TomT5454> OK, can we set a goal for achieving this?
21:01:04 <BlakeGirardot> I'll get the staging repo created in hotosm/ this week
21:01:16 <BlakeGirardot> probably over the US holiday
21:02:00 <BlakeGirardot> and then as you learn steve maybe you can try and just take some rough notes in the new staging repo wiki that we flesh out more later
21:02:12 <BlakeGirardot> or we build off of nicks current notes
21:02:18 <BlakeGirardot> (ya probably the latter)
21:02:42 <althio> I will try to follow this also
21:02:56 <SteveBower> I can definitely review/revise documentation as I go
21:04:23 <SteveBower> OK, I'll work with Nick to get up-to-speed
21:04:59 <TomT5454> Thanks, Steve and Althio
21:07:39 <TomT5454> The rest of Nick's report covers progress and statistics. A quick glance at the latter shows average time on page for Begginner's Guide is 2 minutes
21:08:36 <TomT5454> Ouch!
21:09:03 <TomT5454> #topic Changeset comments
21:09:10 <SuzanReed> That’s a significant stat.
21:09:45 <RAytoun> To actually learn anything from the beginner's guide should take linger than that. Are they just skimming?
21:10:19 <SuzanReed> I left because it was wordy and condescending.
21:10:28 <TomT5454> This is a small one, following up on a long discussion. Blake, I expect your template may need to change if there's agreement on additional changeset attributes
21:10:39 <althio> on your first read, you linger. After that, you skim
21:11:05 <RAytoun> OK althio .. longer
21:11:25 <althio> sorry... :)
21:12:05 <RAytoun> The changeset issue caused some controversy with the OSM people
21:12:10 <althio> and sorry TomT5454, back to topic
21:12:51 <SteveBower> What's the issue? I missed it.
21:13:06 <TomT5454> I guess it doesn't really need discussion here, just track progrress on Github
21:13:57 <althio> unhappy about automatic changessets comments. they want meaningful, human comments
21:14:19 <RAytoun> OSM seem to be upset with us because we use Task identification for our changesets through the Tasking Manager while they give description of specific changes
21:15:03 <SteveBower> ok
21:15:30 <SteveBower> Sounds like a policy issue first, then maybe a training issue
21:15:32 <TomT5454> Some mappers were complainbing that the standard HOT TM changeset comments are too cryptic and not human readable. Apparently for quality control they want to know exactly what was done (i.e., roads realigned, buildings mapped, whatever). Theere was a bit of ill-will towards HOT
21:15:38 <BlakeGirardot> I think the most important take away
21:15:47 <BlakeGirardot> is that we need to encourage and train mappers
21:15:55 <BlakeGirardot> to _add_ to the automated comments
21:16:03 <BlakeGirardot> what they mapped specifically
21:16:19 <BlakeGirardot> "I added in buildings and a few tracks"
21:16:32 <BlakeGirardot> "I fixed up the road network"
21:16:44 <BlakeGirardot> "Identified residential areas and mapped them"
21:16:50 <RAytoun> Now that does affect Training. We would need to specifically explain to mappers to add that
21:17:17 <althio> note we ask exactly that in the Tasking Manager comments
21:17:20 <SteveBower> e.g., add "<add your specific comments here>" to the string in the TM instructions, with some explanation of what's expected?
21:17:26 <BlakeGirardot> Ya, if you can, I know we ask a lot of them already, but we should try.
21:17:35 <TomT5454> They're supposed to do that in the task comments at present
21:18:05 <BlakeGirardot> Not really Tom, the task comments are stuff related to the task, like clouds, or almost done, or someone should review, etc.
21:18:13 <BlakeGirardot> what they mapped should be in the changset comments.
21:18:42 <RAytoun> In iD this is possible at each changeset but JOSM is different
21:19:32 <BlakeGirardot> I like your suggestion steve, but if that is actually in the changeset default comments, people will just leave it there I think.
21:20:01 <BlakeGirardot> I think it is more of a training issue and I have to look at iD to see if maybe we could encourage in directly in iD
21:20:27 <TomT5454> Anyway, the problem statement is on Github. I can give the reference
21:20:28 <SteveBower> Here's the suggested changeset comment for task #1335: "#hotosm-project-1335". Could change that to "#hotosm-project-1335 <add specific comments here>"
21:20:43 <RAytoun> It is a lot easier to get done in iD as there is a comment panel for each save funstion
21:20:57 <SteveBower> Then a QA step could be to search for "<add specific comment here>", to flag problems, and give feedback
21:21:12 <RAytoun> Oooops function
21:21:37 <SteveBower> I mean, search the changesets for "<add specific comment here>"
21:21:49 <SteveBower> Just a thought
21:22:05 <BlakeGirardot> I think that is just going to compound the problem Steve
21:22:33 <SteveBower> yeah, not easy to put into practice
21:23:05 <RAytoun> The trouble with HOT mapping is that they do not just map a single feature but do lots of different features before saving
21:23:10 <BlakeGirardot> We are already critisized for non helpful comments and adding yet another thing for us to be responsible for (removing < ... > ) just is not sustainable or scalable.
21:23:46 <BlakeGirardot> Ya, I agree Ralph, most of what I end up putting in is "mapped some buildings and roads" which is what I do most of the time
21:24:03 <SteveBower> Yep - unless it was automated as part of the changeset process, to catch it there
21:24:09 <BlakeGirardot> I personally don't think that is very helpful, but if people what to see what I mapped, that is why it is grouped into a changeset :)
21:24:21 <BlakeGirardot> How much more specific can I be?
21:24:32 <SteveBower> @blake : me too - an maybe "added buiidings and roads" is enough?
21:24:37 <RAytoun> That is true but then trees, walls, schools, etc get in the way
21:25:08 <BlakeGirardot> Ya, good point, if I did map those things I would probably add them to the comment (or should)
21:25:54 <RAytoun> Becomes a rather lengthy comment and will slow down the mapping rate
21:26:05 <BlakeGirardot> Anyway, we need to start thinking about getting that message, "please add what you mapped to the changeset comment" into all the places it is appropriate. TM instructions, iD UI, video's of how to map, etc.
21:26:29 <BlakeGirardot> No need to re-do anything, but going forward
21:26:47 <BlakeGirardot> (I updated my suggested TM instructions to include that already )
21:26:59 <SteveBower> In TM, the "?" tooltip for the "Changeset Comment" is, "The comment to put when uploading data to the OSM database"). If I read that I would put the exact comment there, without additional detail.
21:27:25 <RAytoun> Can we consider an automatic comment that says general basic mapping of roads , waterways, and buildings?
21:27:34 <BlakeGirardot> great, lets create an issue in github to updated that Steve
21:27:50 <BlakeGirardot> (I'll do it, I am there)
21:28:18 <TomT5454> I think it was Mikel who already opened an issue
21:28:55 <SteveBower> Great, thanks Blake. The tooltip may not be the best/only place. Could go on the box header, as in "Changeset Comment (add a brief summary of your changes to this text)".
21:29:06 <TomT5454> #link
21:31:03 <BlakeGirardot> done and linked to 703
21:31:15 <TomT5454> Great
21:31:24 <SteveBower> It's also an issue for how TM tasks are set up. E.g., #1335 has "#hotosm-project-1335" for the changeset comment, but in the text below says "Add source=Bing to the changeset".
21:31:42 <TomT5454> #topic Guide to organizing a mapathon
21:32:41 <TomT5454> John Whelan suggested this and Ralph pointed to documentation they already have. Do we add it to LearnOSM?
21:33:19 <BlakeGirardot> i would add whatever makes sense to LearnOSM because then it is easy to find and gets translated.
21:33:27 <althio> I say yes
21:33:44 <RAytoun> There is an excellent detailed tick box on our Missing Maps Trello Board. I will get permission to copy it.
21:33:59 <SteveBower> Here's a potentially useful link, at least for ideas (i.e., within the LearnOSM license limitations): #link
21:36:09 <RAytoun> It goes through the whole timeline of who to contact, what to set up, and what equipment, refreshments etc.
21:36:32 <TomT5454> OK, maybe we can start with Ralph's as base and fold in ideas from other sources
21:36:54 <RAytoun> I will get onto that staright after the meeting
21:37:04 <TomT5454> Thanks.
21:37:49 <TomT5454> #topic Guide to creating a TM project
21:38:39 <SteveBower> Is creating a TM project covered under the activation protocol/training?
21:38:54 <TomT5454> I wondered that myself
21:39:47 <TomT5454> Have to check the Activation courses, I guess
21:40:23 <TomT5454> It should really be covered there
21:40:30 <SteveBower> I'm checking the protocol now...
21:41:51 <althio> check at
21:41:58 <SteveBower> The protocol notes the need to create a TM project, but has no specifics on how, expectations, or templates
21:43:24 <TomT5454> We can discuss this one with Russell, I think
21:43:43 <althio> it is included in the 'assignment'/'endorsement' - more or less?
21:44:05 <RAytoun> As only certain people have permission to create projects should this training not be a separate issue that is given to people along with their permission to create a task?
21:44:47 <TomT5454> Makes sense
21:45:02 <BlakeGirardot> Ya, it probably belongs in the courses material, as it is not OSM really and we actually do want to test on it so we know those createing projects understand the best practices.
21:45:33 <SteveBower> @althio - I just followed the course steps in that link. They describe how to create a project, but no real guidance as to the types of details that should be included (like road tags, changeset comments, etc.). No template or examplary project to refer to.
21:45:35 <RAytoun> Included in that instruction would be how to set out the mapping instructions
21:46:10 <SteveBower> @blake : I agree
21:46:50 <RAytoun> Good point Blake. This is HOT and not OSM
21:46:56 <TomT5454> Does this WG waant to do the work, or should we leave it to Activation?
21:47:20 <BlakeGirardot> I say we assign it to Russ since he isn't here ;)
21:47:22 <BlakeGirardot> (kidding)
21:47:31 <RAytoun> We can work with Activation on this as the instructions affects what we are doing
21:48:16 <TomT5454> OK, I'll discuss with RUSS
21:48:46 <TomT5454> #topic Other business
21:48:57 <TomT5454> Anything else?
21:50:03 <TomT5454> #topic Next meeting
21:50:36 <TomT5454> Next meeting December 7 at 20:00 UTC?
21:50:45 <SteveBower> 2000 or 1900 UT?
21:50:56 <SteveBower> 20:00 is good for me.
21:51:57 <TomT5454> It fits Suzan's schedule better
21:52:02 <SteveBower> Russell sent an update invite yesterday that was for 19:00. Should we move to 12:00 permanently?
21:52:10 <RAytoun> I am fine with 20:00
21:52:16 <SteveBower> I mean 20:00?
21:52:34 <TomT5454> I;d propose to do so
21:52:54 <TomT5454> Althio, what does that do to you?
21:53:46 <althio> let me check, what is the time now?
21:54:00 <althio> 20:54 UTC?
21:54:09 <TomT5454> 21:54 UTC
21:54:24 <althio> right, thanks
21:54:39 <RAytoun> I am also OK with 19:00
21:55:13 <SteveBower> I'm ok with either, 20:00 is a bit better for me
21:55:27 <althio> for me 20:00 is better, 19:00 partially, 12:00 not possible
21:56:14 <TomT5454> Let it be 20:00, then
21:56:37 <SteveBower> Then Russell (or someone) should send another updated invite, for 20:00. Tom: Want me to contact Russell?
21:57:26 <TomT5454> I have to write him anyway regarding the TM project guide, so I can include that
21:57:32 <TomT5454> Thanks
21:57:56 <TomT5454> And that's all folks
21:58:04 <TomT5454> #endmeeting