Camera properties

[elKaZe]

For a more organized discussion I've have opened this issue, in continuation of one of the topics developed on #3

I believe if we can design an interface based on icons, it will be easy to understand and fast to use. Just after mark the camera a sequence of icons can be shown to be selected and set the properties.

[lgommans]

I think we should quote some of the discussion for future reference. I'll add my new thoughts in a separate comment.

It started with @milo-trujillo's question:

we should use a larger tag suite to describe the cameras, and add more meaningful data to OSM. At the same time I want to keep the interface as simple and fast to use as possible, so everyone can easily mark cameras as they walk down the street without thinking about it. With that in mind, I see a few ways to add the functionality:

• Allow users to set the type of camera from its pop-up menu, after it has been added to the map
• Allow users to enable "specify type of camera" in settings, after which they will be prompted for a type when marking a camera
• Make specifying the camera type mandatory, and hope for the best

I responded:

Technically you can create an OSM object with any tags. The more accurate the tags the better, but "here is a camera" is better than nothing, even if it's worse than "here is a camera from SatCom angled north-northwest with a view angle of...".

With that in mind, I'd ask people to specify immediately after adding it so they don't forget, but with a big "not right now" option. Something like this:

So kind of your second option, but opt-out rather than opt-in. And opt-out right from this screen, without having to dig into the settings.

To which @PanderMusubi said:

Please, make camera type Mandatory.

The person adding the camera is looking at the camera, so the information is at hand at that moment. Why waste the opportunity to enter what is obvious, while it is costly to revisit a location.

He mentions a few fields that should be mandatory (indoor/outdoor/public; the zone it's in like town/parking; etc.) and a few that should be optional. Original comment.

@elKaZe said we might want to follow the Surveillance under Surveillance project's mandatory information, or at least take some ideas.

@milo-trujillo responded again, saying:

@lgommans I like the opt-out design. It might be a little harder to write, but it seems like a good balance between getting as much data as we can while making the app quick and easy to use.

[...]

@PanderMusubi The counter argument is that we want to make the app as quick to use as possible. While I'm walking down the street with someone I don't want to pause to fill out a form every time I pass a camera. We need a balance between collecting valuable information and making the submission process trivial.

@elKaZe Those seem a good minimum data set. We would need to mark Indoor/Outdoor/Public, and box/dome style, but that might be small enough to make easily select-able when submitting.

[lgommans]

@PanderMusubi made a good point, saying the person is looking right at it, and going back to add details is a lot more work. I think it's also less rewarding to edit cameras that are already on the map vs. adding new ones. @elKaZe's idea of using icons to make it quick and easy sounds like a good way to do that. In this way, I think people wouldn't mind adding those details.

[elKaZe]

I would :P, maybe start with fixed/dome

[lgommans]

Many of those options don't seem mutually exclusive by the way. E.g. the dome is fixed, so it's not a mobile camera, now what? Iconography might be easiest :P