LearnOSM's goals

[lxbarth]

LearnOSM is growing! This is great, but it also makes me ask: what are the goals for LearnOSM? What's the audience? What is appropriate content and what isn't? To do good and maintainable learning materials they're ideally compact and modular.

[Nick-Tallguy]

@lxbarth @althio @bgirardot

Hi, I have yet to discuss any of my ideas with the rest of the team - perhaps Monday's meeting would be good, but my thoughts have been tending towards (this is not a timeline as some of these items need to be taking place in parallel):

• HOT's website at http://hot.openstreetmap.org/get-involved states 'Our website learnosm.org will get you mapping quickly and painlessly. Maybe there is a local OpenStreetMap meet-up around. Going to those events is a great way to learn more about the OpenStreetMap project in general.'
• The wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page is very comprehensive - to the extent that it is difficult to get actually mapping because there is so much information it is difficult to find what you need.
• http://teachosm.org/en/ is aimed at the professional organiser who wishes to organise a curriculum with assessed learning.
• LearnOSM neatly fits into the gap - the TaskManager defines what specifically has to be done, and LearnOSM can show you how to do it. As the site uses markdown it is relatively easy to produce printed guides suitable for use when internet access is limited (this can happen anywhere in the world during a mapathon!

I believe that currently there are four user cases who look to LearnOSM for guidance, and that the site caters for these, but only if you know the information is actually in LearnOSM and you can find it:

1. Beginner - well catered for - it's you're landing point if you search in your web browser for 'learnosm' - what is OSM, how to get involved & how to use the mapping tools. A very good guide, especially good for the fieldwork side of HOT.
2. Mobile tools and how to use them - 'field papers', gps, OSMTracker, OSMand, etc. Not sure how up to date some of these sections are - a review is on my rather long ToDo list. I guess that our hit rate on this section relates to the Missing Maps projects & the data collection taking place there. Certainly I intend to make these guides available as a downloadable .pdf asap so the users can download them when they have internet access and share them more easily.
3. OSM-data - qgis etc. I imagine this is the aid organisations making best use of the data which has been provided.
4. Remote mappers looking for info on how to interpret, trace & tag the features they are seeing when working with the Tasking Manager.

User cases 2, 3 & 4 actually need to know specifically that what they want to find is within the site, or they will not find it - for instance, use the search engine & search on 'building' and you will not find anything, but there is a fairly detailed section on this within http://learnosm.org/en/coordination/remote/

I believe we need to consider a few options, but come up with a system whereby the excellent material within the site is 'advertised' better. Perhaps a 'full site index' with the 4 sections above each having a section list of chapters - needs more thought!

There is an overlap, but I come from a background of learning how to map & I've learnt a small amount about updating the website. Others have come from a more technical background and are trying to make it easier for us to have the website we would like. I do know that organising chapters by a method involving the file name having a date makes it difficult if you want to reorganize something (I also know that when you search github for information on how to set up a site, it seems to be the way they recommend!). If we re-organise the site into a filing system more acceptable to the 'technical volunteers', but also easier for the 'mapper who wishes to help' would we have more people willing to help keep the site up to date, and perhaps perform in the future with 'whistles & bells' whilst still allowing the simple production of printed guides - I think both can be done. Whatever we do I think needs better documentation so that any new volunteers don't have to spend long periods of time working out how to help.

I think we need to reorganize the site as per #306 but I also think we need :

• remote section - buildings - transferring tags from a node to a polygon, schools & any other special cases,
• remote section - aligning the imagery,
• remote section - waterways (leads into)
• remote section - relations - islands, courtyards, admin boundaries
• once we have info on 'how to map', then a section on how to help other mappers to develop - 'validating' (there is already some information on this, and the wiki article).
• more detailed instructions for new & potential TM project managers

Should there be more links from the Tasking Manager to LearnOSM - it would be very easy to provide a template for TM project managers so they can copy and paste, something like,
trace all buildings - click here if you are not sure how. Producing such a template is relatively easy, but I don't wish to do so until we have decided on the file structure, and we also have all of the information in place.

Translations - this should be a continuous process paired with managing the minor amendments & updates, but we need to document the how a little better. Personally I think that a translation provided by a mapper will be better every time as they will keep it in context. But if we could increase our team without detracting from the urgent mapping tasks (enhance the number of mappers by giving instructions in all languages), we could really make progress on the translation front.

hmmm... went on a bit didn't it - sorry. But I think we did have over 2800 visits to the site in the last couple of weeks, so it's got to be worth keeping it contemporary, simple and informative.

[lxbarth]

@Nick-Tallguy - thanks, very useful.

Considering engaging on LearnOSM more what I'm most worried about is is the broad scope of the project. The result is for instance a long language list in the header creating expectation that the site can't keep up with. Or sections of the site that are not fully maintained.

Are there any thoughts around breaking LearnOSM into more independently manageable pieces?

[mikelmaron]

LearnOSM has always struggled with the balance of being the best beginner guide for OSM, and providing pathways to greater skills.

I agree, the focus of organizing and maintenance should be on the core materials, and on those translations. There's are certainly better ways to manage that translation workflow, and I think there's other discussions on that.

If you look at the front page, there's a "More Guides", and "Organizing a Workshop?" buttons, that link to the same page on the GitHub wiki. Additionally, there's the "Other Guides" navigation box (which is relatively new? and not particularly descriptive :). I don't think the "Other Guides" section should be on the same level as the Beginner's Guide, in the architecture of the site. IMO, there's the Beginners Guide, and then there's everything else, and the presentation should reflect that.

For more advanced materials, we should develop some shared principles, it's evident LearnOSM doesn't have that yet. For instance, if there are better guides for topics, it's helpful to be made aware, but we shouldn't replicate. The Map Design section is a good example of this, MapBox guides are more up to date, and LearnOSM can just link to them. TeachOSM is a companion but separate site to LearnOSM, so can just introduce and link there. This doesn't mean that there can't be "advanced" original content on LearnOSM, but it should really be thought through, and if something better exists elsewhere, or could be an independent site, shed it off.

[Nick-Tallguy]

@mikelmaron I agree with the majority of the comments. The whole site needs a review, and if we are making a change to the filing system this may be the time to do this. We only carry over what we have reviewed, tidied, and know is the 'best source'.

I do wonder if the site should be broken up into more than one site - my particular (but not exclusive) interests are related to mapping remotely with the tasking manager, and the subsequent ground survey (tools, methods etc), together with how to manage that back into OSM - using Tasking Manager or some other means. In other words, I've got very involved in the Missing Maps Project & would like there to be documentation in various forms to cover the needs there. I'd also like to see more links to screencasts, and perhaps other outside sites. (I still believe we can produce printed guides, it's just that more editing may be advised to tidy them up - but some is required now anyway).

Alternatively, using the one site, but altering the front page - this is purely an illustration and I'm not suggesting we go with this:

If you click on your coloured block, the index displayed relates to your particular area of interest. But, we have a home button so you can go to another area of interest if you wish. Some particular subjects can appear in more than one section - Tasking manager would probably be of interested to 3 of the sections. Rearranging the filing system behind the site should make it easier for someone more technical like @pyrog to create individual indexes for the different subject headings.

At the moment the site has attracted the interest of a number of people, which is good & is allowing a number of ideas to take shape - I'm not convinced that would happen if we split the site. There is a danger of one person working alone, gradually losing interest and that particular site potentially stagnating.

Part of the 'fun' at the moment is the variety of information here, and I look forward to learning more about qgis!

Languages - yes it is complicated, Hopefully we can manager it. I would not wish to lose a potential 'audience' merely because we found it difficult. There are systems available and we're investigating (@althio mainly at the moment).

[pyrog]

@mikelmaron

For instance, if there are better guides for topics, it's helpful to be made aware, but we shouldn't replicate. The Map Design section is a good example of this, MapBox guides are more up to date, and LearnOSM can just link to them.

👍 but does MapBox (and others) provide translations ?

If not, how could we provide translations ?

• inside LearnOSM site ?
• inside MapBox site ?
  Does learnOSM community could provide translations to MapBox

@Nick-Tallguy

I still believe we can produce printed guides

👍 I see the beginner's guide like a "reference book" with severals editions.
The website is the last edition but could provide links to severals format (pdf, epub…) and also old editions.

And of course, the tools (static website generator) could/should generate theses files.

[mikelmaron]

but does MapBox (and others) provide translations ?

that's a good point. @lxbarth

[mikelmaron]

I do wonder if the site should be broken up into more than one site

I really would say, there's LearnOSM for beginners, and there's everything else. Whether it is a different site or a different section ... visually distinguish and make beginner's guide the main draw. That's my take.

[lxbarth]

but does MapBox (and others) provide translations ?
that's a good point. @lxbarth

We keep our soon to be published mapping docs in English and Spanish, we don't have plans in creating any other translations or content beyond those docs right now.

[althio]

I think I agree with all your points @Nick-Tallguy

Hi, I have yet to discuss any of my ideas with the rest of the team - perhaps Monday's meeting would be good...

+1 better search
+1 better index and navigation
+1 reorganize the site as per #306
+1 for review and proposed new sections

+1 for better documentation for contributing to LearnOSM

+1 for links from TM instructions to LearnOSM

+1 for instructions template for TM project managers (out of TM2 code but
proposed first in wiki then in LearnOSM when stabilised). This is on my
wishlist (and todo list) since hotosm/osm-tasking-manager2#132 (comment)

+1 still work to do on translation process

[althio]

Considering engaging on LearnOSM more what I'm most worried about is is the broad scope of the project. The result is for instance a long language list in the header creating expectation that the site can't keep up with. Or sections of the site that are not fully maintained.
Are there any thoughts around breaking LearnOSM into more independently manageable pieces?

I would like LearnOSM to be inclusive to all people and all languages.
So I am happy with the long language list in the header.

[mikelmaron]

the long language list in the header.

I don't see any issue with that, it's good. The issue is keeping the translations up to date.

[althio]

I agree, the focus of organizing and maintenance should be on the core materials, and on those translations.

+1. IMO priority on beginner content.

For more advanced subjects, I agree with @mikelmaron that we should look at external content. BUT @pyrog is right that we need to consider if external content is translated.
If this is not the case (EDIT: it is not the case with the MapBox example), LearnOSM could be a platform of shared knowledge and open translation.

[althio]

The whole site needs a review, and if we are making a change to the filing system this may be the time to do this.
We only carry over what we have reviewed, tidied, and know is the 'best source'.

Additionally we can further evaluate and mark each file/section: eg. best source, good for publication, known better sources, outdated, needs review, needs translation, removed...

At the moment the site has attracted the interest of a number of people, which is good & is allowing a number of ideas to take shape - I'm not convinced that would happen if we split the site. There is a danger of one person working alone, gradually losing interest and that particular site potentially stagnating.
Part of the 'fun' at the moment is the variety of information here, and I look forward to learning more about qgis!

We may also need to lower all the barriers (with documentation, processes, technical help, versioning, priorities/ToDo/backlog...) so that more people can know what, where and how to contribute easily. I think that is the power of community and crowd-sourcing, once you get to a critical mass. We also need to consider that the site is not so static, it needs update, even people (contributors and maintainers) can change often in a open-source project.

[pyrog]

Additionally we can further evaluate and mark each file/section: eg. best source, good for publication, known better sources, outdated, needs review, needs translation, removed...

Prose.io "templates" are good to provide checkbox/listbox/tags to mark chapters, associated to (jekyll) layouts to show/hide pages with some "tags" in their front matter 😄

We may also need to lower all the barriers (with documentation, processes, technical help, versioning, priorities/ToDo/backlog...) so that more people can know what, where and how to contribute easily. I think that is the power of community and crowd-sourcing, once you get to a critical mass.

See examples of quality and open source books:

• http://book.openingscience.org
• http://ruby-for-beginners.rubymonstas.org

We also need to consider that the site is not so static, it needs update, even people (contributors and maintainers) can change often in a open-source project.

It's the case with previous examples 😉

[RAytoun]

My problem with all of this is that there is so much that I lose track of what I have or have not done or seen. What about a downloadable check box index that takes you through the tutorials and notes in a logical order and each person can download their own personal list onto their desktop and can keep track of what they have or have not done and what they still need to do. We can also then be able to better control what people see as important to read up on. Included on this will be a list of the sites to go to for various questions or problems.