My personal views is that statuses done/validated/invalidated should be related to progress and quality of the current state of mapping. We should not use that to give feedback or give implicitly a notation to previous mappers. Use comments (with @-mentions) for feedback. A "notation" of mappers is a very complex and different problem.
Pragmatic / Real situation answers Empty tile or most work not done: invalidated, short comment. A bit of work left to do ie. a few missing elements or tagging errors. I would do corrections to bring the mapping standard up to required level, I would add detailed comment to provide feedback or guidance. If I am confident enough with the previous work and my minor edits, I validate since the tile is now OK. Otherwise I leave it to another reviewer. In between? It depends on the mood and available time obviously and the limits between cases are fuzzy. If I have too little time or it is too much corrections I would go for the comments only with @-mentions, most of the time with no further validation/invalidation. If I avoid invalidation I hope the comment is enough for track record and bring attention to previous and potential mappers. This is taking care of community over quality and I appreciate that opinions may differ. john whelan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Question at what point should I invalidate? The question arises when > perhaps I've added a dozen settlements and half a dozen highways, I'm > fairly experienced so fairly comfortable the work is OK after I've added in > the validation but there is the question that I've added a dozen > settlements and no one else will be validating. > > I'm looking more for pragmatic answers more than anything else, there is a > concern that if I invalidate a tile it may demotivate a mapper and at the > moment we have a lot of tiles to map. > > Thanks > > Cheerio John >
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
