Thanks both,

No offence assumed or recieved.

Although I do apprceciate the exercise in linguistic engineering, perhaps before we dive into how the post was written, it would be great to focus on what it is about.

Why don’t you both join me first in welcoming KLL, which was the intent of the post, and then we can take the grammatical gymnastics into another space. :)

Thanks for detailing that out. Many of the presumptions and assumptions you’ve made are unfortunately incorrect.

I’m Australian and write in a relaxed style that expresses who I am, in an effort to connect with people in more conversational form.

I also don’t like to assume someone else’s knowledge of English is ‘lesser’ just because they aren’t from an English speaking country, that seems a bit patronizing.

But I appreciate the response.

I’m not sure I understand?

Thanks for the question on the JOSM vs RapID.

For the findings, we found that overall, advanaced mappers were faster and about the same level of quality using RapID when compared to ID, after some initial learning/adjustment.

For beginners, we found that they mapped much faster with RapID, but with no significant impact on quality.

The main reason we didn’t use a RapID/JOSM comparison was because most beginner mappers had not used JOSM before, which created barriers to being able to complete the mapping tasks and we really wanted to compare the effects of AI-assistance on both advanced and beginner mappers.

However, you raise an interesting idea for future reserch, perhaps if a group wanted to focus only on advanaced mappers, a comparison between JOSM traditional and JOSM mapwithAi plugin would make for an interesting exploration. Great suggestion!

@Rab, we had to shut down the OSM mirrors we were using to save costs, however, we will be spinning them back up in a month. When we do, we can share the links so you can access the data.

Kindness,

Bo

Thanks @RAytoun,

I think this is really good contribution and reminder on how we can maintain our direction on HOT’s mission. I also appreciate the direction in terms of what we can also contribute to the direction of OSM as well. We will definitely integrate these into the next iteration of this doc.

Thanks again!

thanks @redsteakraw.

I very much agree with what you’re saying. In fact, so much so, that we dedicated the last 4 months specifically doing exactly what you are suggesting. If you have a read back through of my previous diaries, you may see the approach we took is similar to what you are suggesting.

The problem statements in this post are the outcomes of exactly the process you mention, so it would be great to maybe hear some feedback from you on the previous process we undertook to understand what local mappers need.

I think you make good points, but I’m still a bit unclear, do any of these problems resonate with you?

Thanks for the feedback @resteakraw,

So linking that response to the initial question, ‘which problem resonates with you’, it would probably seem like you are referring to the problem statement related to ‘Technical Barriers to Entry’.

From what I interpret your response as, you may also be pointing to another significant problem which we may not have stated above. Perhaps relating to a lack of user prioritisation in product development?

@redsteakraw

I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and time you took to craft this response. The feedback is really well recieved. I equally appreciate both the problem identification and the solution proposals. I’m going to go through it a few times just to make sure I understand all the pieces, but I will definitely be integrating this into the core doc.

Thanks again.

Kindness,

bo

Thanks for the response!

The tongue in my cheek when mentioning ‘solutioning’ (implied by the inverted commas) may have been removed in the markdown ;) .

Ahh you beat me to it with boaty mcboatface.

Maybe something about a regional node?

Humanitarian OpenMapNode Asia Pacific or some such.

I like the comment on language from Andrew, however recognising the diversity of Asia Pacific, it might be quite challenging to make sure everyone is represented.

Hi Theo,

Thanks for the flag, I should have been more explicit. hot_tech is just a name to represent the tech team for Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT). I will update the post now to be more explicit. Thanks for the feedback!

Kindness,

bo

Great post @Jikka!

Nothing but support from me on this!

I really hope that as the real word changes the virtual world in which we all operate can evolve and change as well (like the statement you mentioned). One tip from me, newbie isn’t a dirty word and every word from your first to your last shoud be valued equally. It’s #newbies that bring new perspectives, new ideas and new voices to the conversation, so I hope we hear more from #newbies and listen more to them as well.

Hi Simon,

You raise a good point here. We will be running the comparison experiments on three different models (and respective training data) that have already been checked, referneced and approved for any residual IP, as you have highlighted. A quick brief below:

1. Private Sector Derived Data Set - Imagery, model and training data have all been cleared for use in this context
2. Partner Derived Data Set - Developed by a partner for this project, who has already conducted their own due diligence, as well as committed to this being opened after the experiements are conducted.
3. Open Source Data Provider - An open source data set that is accessible and avilable under an open data license.

You will understand that to maintain the integrity of the experiements I have purposely omitted identifiers to who will be providing the data, however, once it is completed everything will be made public and open after publication.

I hope this information is helpful for you and all others who may be reading.