Selecting objects results in a random number of objects within the selection actually being selected

[dametcalfe@…]

Using the selection tool inside a JOSM MapWithAI layer will result in a random number of objects within that selection being selected. Sometimes it'll select all objects as one would expect, but more often, it's a subset of the objects at random.

[dametcalfe@…]

Unable to upload a video due to unreasonably small attachment size limits. Here's a link to a screen recording instead.

​https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HKEBKwSVDGa4aN9fymY2Qb18XwICdWvm/view?usp=sharing

[taylor.smock]

This was actually a deliberate "feature" to hopefully prevent someone from opening a large area and adding everything without looking at it. What happens is I go through the new selection, compare it with the old selection, preferentially keep the old selection, and then add the (whole) objects encountered in the new selection that are not in the old selection.

This functionality is controlled by the Maximum features (add) setting in JOSM Preferences -> MapWithAI -> Settings. The number of new objects that can be selected is the Maximum features (add) setting / 10.

If you are using the MapWithAI plugin for an import, please let me know, and I'll DM the import account with instructions on how to disable the import prevention functionality. Abuse of the feature in non-import situations will result in the feature being removed, and the versions of the plugin with the work-around feature will stop working.

Requirements:

• You have already gone through the import process, and you can point me at the mailing list messages (imports and imports-<locality>) where you got approval

[dametcalfe@…]

While I understand that there is a strong desire to avoid allowing someone to blanket approve large swaths of objects without review, the current behaviour doesn't even appear to respect the maximum features. I can put in seemingly any number in this field, and if we assume 1000/10, the features being selected and thus added are well below 100. A selection of even 10 objects will still generally result in perhaps 5 random objects selected. This is even demonstrated in the linked video from 0:12 to 0:14.

My workflow is to go through a section of available objects and delete ones that are wrong, then select and approve the remaining ones, and lastly, adjust any incorrect orientations from there before finally uploading the changes. The inconsistent behaviour of the selections requires that I hold shift and select the same area multiple times to cover the already audited objects, making my workflow much more inefficient than it could be.

I'm not sure what is meant by "using the MapWithAI plugin for an import" so I can't speak further on this.

[taylor.smock]

While I understand that there is a strong desire to avoid allowing someone to blanket approve large swaths of objects without review, the current behaviour doesn't even appear to respect the maximum features. I can put in seemingly any number in this field, and if we assume 1000/10, the features being selected and thus added are well below 100. A selection of even 10 objects will still generally result in perhaps 5 random objects selected. This is even demonstrated in the linked video from 0:12 to 0:14.

Depending upon the version, there was a hard cap of 100 for that setting. I've adjusted this a bit in recent versions, but there is still a hard cap.

[dametcalfe@…]

Replying to taylor.smock:

While I understand that there is a strong desire to avoid allowing someone to blanket approve large swaths of objects without review, the current behaviour doesn't even appear to respect the maximum features. I can put in seemingly any number in this field, and if we assume 1000/10, the features being selected and thus added are well below 100. A selection of even 10 objects will still generally result in perhaps 5 random objects selected. This is even demonstrated in the linked video from 0:12 to 0:14.

Depending upon the version, there was a hard cap of 100 for that setting. I've adjusted this a bit in recent versions, but there is still a hard cap.

Gotcha. Well, that makes a bit more sense with selections never going over 10 items.

It would still be nice to have a prescribed workflow for improving efficiency to enable higher volume contributions. Or perhaps even some mechanism for exceptions with users that have a proven track record on OSM. For example, I've got over 350k changes on my account (​https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?David%20Metcalfe), which should count for something in that regard.

Food for thought. Either way, thanks for your work on the plugin.

[taylor.smock]

No problem.

As far as increasing the max add for users with a proven record, it is something I want to do, but I've got some higher priority projects going on. (Mapillary is changing their API).