Hi

I have started using DAMN for notathons and we define areas according to different criteria that produce circular or non-square polygons. However, in many parts of the applications, it refers to “square” to the working area. I propose to change it to task, area, or another word.

Best regards,


Andres Gomez - AngocA

Hello Andres,

> I have started using DAMN for notathons and we define areas according
> to different criteria that produce circular or non-square polygons.
> However, in many parts of the applications, it refers to “square” to
> the working area. I propose to change it to task, area, or another
> word.

thank you for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated. First, I would
like to present why "square" is used. Then, I am open to the proposals
for the better naming, but there are some requirements.

First, the term "square" is used historically: An _area_ stored in the
"Divide and map. Now." [1] was divided into the rectangular shapes. The
_square_ is shorter than _rectangular shape_ and so it is.

Second, the _square_ as well as an _area_ evoke the planar shape. And
that is exactly the purpose of the "Divide and map. Now." [1]:

> The damn project helps mappers by dividing some big area into smaller
> squares that a human can map.

Third, the term "square" was chosen to avoid confusion of _what is that
task about_ problems mentioned in Pete's diary [2]. The term "task" is
too generic.

To sum it up: The problem (project) comes with some big area that can be
divided up and mapped (solved).

Requirements that come to my mind for the divided up "thing" -- the
smaller piece of the area -- should be:

1. short and clear
2. planar
3. (evokes) subset of _area_

From my current point of view, the "area" is occupied and the "task" is
too generic. Could you, please, elaborate a little bit more on this?

Thanks!
jiri

[1]: https://www.damn-project.org/
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/pedrito1414/diary/395256