Hi qeef, Thanks for reaching out. Another brief description of the project can be found here: https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/6697178806878208/#6694007273422848

If you’d like to follow along with development or try out the integration, take a look at this github issue https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5856 and this branch https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/commits/tm_test I currently only have the integration working with a local instance of HOT’s Tasking Manager, but this should change soon so that you can demo it with a staging instance of the TM. This project will likely require work past my official GSoC time window, so keep checking back for progress. All feedback is welcome!

Hi everyone, sorry for a late reply.

@Alexander-II, Thanks! Please let me know if you run into any problems, or open an issue on github.

@philippec, This was intended as an example comment and may be misleading. I drove by that area recently and saw a lot of construction. The note was not actually created.

@Pieter Vander Vennet, The icon size (within a note icon) has since been bumped up a bit. Do you think this is satisfactory or would you suggest another change? We certainly want to make the difference obvious. If we can come up with a good scheme, it could be applied to other layers, such as the KeepRight QA layer that I’m introducing (see: my blog post on KeepRight in iD). At the moment, since there are a lot of different error types, they’re only color coded, which I know is not optimal.

Thanks, -Thomas

Thanks for your comments @TheEditor101. Bryan Housel and I were discussing how other QA tools should be added, and that they should be configurable (such as filtering by error type). I agree that these errors are somewhat cryptic. I do worry that sending users to a wiki or even off the osm website (like to keepright.at) could slow down editing and may cause users to give up. Since KeepRight doesn’t have suggestions, we may have to come up with those manually in iD, or based on what the OSM community thinks would be good suggestions. Perhaps I could reach out to the creator of keepright.at and see what suggestions they have. It is indeed nice that osmose does give suggestions and perhaps it should be added to iD before KeepRight. I’ll think on this some more today.

Thanks for your feedback! We are considering a lot of ways to filter including by error type (as you can do on keepright.at), age of the error and when an entity with an error was last updated (also currently visible keepright.at). Currently, this feature relies on the error dump that is generated by a weekly QA run by keepright.at. So, as of now, iD will query all of the available error types from keepright.at based on their error types.

If you have any suggestions about what you’d like to see with QA tools or what users would benefit from (without over complicating them), let me know!

Thanks, -Thomas

Hi SimonPoole,

Thanks for your comment. Hmm… add photos is an interesting idea. I have several other ideas floating around as well. Later on this week, I’ll check in with my mentors and see what they think about adding photos. I think my work may focus more on expanding note capabilities via tagging & categorization, or streamlining notes communication. However, adding photos is desirable as well. Stay tuned!

Thanks @Andy Allan! These servers will certainly come in handy.

@philippec, hmm these are some interesting points. First off, I appreciate your enthusiasm for adding notes, especially ones that can (and have been?) groundtruthed using Mapillary, satellite imagery, etc. I will look into other community blogs, open tickets, ask my mentors, etc. if such a list of categories exists. Ultimately, this project is scoped to integrating notes into iD and not altering the Notes API. But provided there is enough interest from the community (and extra time), I would certainly be interested in prototyping a categorization system.

In the mean time, here are a few of my thoughts. Notes on openstreetmap.org do have details on how old the note is (e.g., “almost 5 years ago”). I am sure you know this, and perhaps we could make the time more explicit (e.g., “125 days ago”), but that may not help much. I would think that a category for “future work” notes would be helpful (like in the Brussels cruise terminal case), but I too could see OSM being littered with these. On your comment “I prefer to make notes about objects that do not interest me, but someone else. Some mappers like that, a well documented note with pictures. Others think I am just lazy.” … I like this idea too because it suggests that perhaps someone with more local knowledge could pick up the work that has been done, and work on it.

However, I agree with some of the comments from other mappers that this sort of bloats notes and make a lot of half finished ones. However, I think this is a case by case thing and that no categorizing approach would really fix this. Alternatively though, I do like your idea that we could have a section where a note creator fills in:

1. what has been done (which may be nothing other than background knowledge)
2. Remaining tasks / issues
3. potentially a category tag (in my opinion, a priority level and possibly if the author suggests a feature type).

Thanks! -Thomas

Hi @philippec, Thanks for your comment. What exactly do you have in mind? Would this be tagging a post (with user-generated tags, or OSM feature tags)? Or categorizing them by their importance, like high priority, vs blue sky, etc.