5 ms·

I tried this out like a week ago and I was wondering the same so I tried to upload and... it's definitely uploading crap. I don't know what to tell you but all

by Aachen 2y ago

I tried this out like a week ago and I was wondering the same so I tried to upload and... it's definitely uploading crap. I don't know what to tell you but all the clearly square ones I saw have bends on the straight lines It's useful for finding ones that haven't been mapped but not for drawing them. It can get the 4 corners pretty accurate for pools that are square, many are half round at the ends though

daavoo 2y ago
Hi, sorry if the project or narrative gave the wrong impression but my idea was to show the potential, not providing a polished solution. As disclaimed in the demo and code, the example model was trained only with data from Galicia on a Google Colab. A robust enough models would require more data and compute. > it's definitely uploading crap. What was uploaded was what a human approved. > It's useful for finding ones that haven't been mapped but not for drawing them. It can get the 4 corners pretty accurate for pools that are square, many are half round at the ends though I couldn't dedicate enough time on the best way to refine the predictions, but happy to hear and discuss any ideas. Ideas I have are: - Try an oriented bounding box model instead of detection + segmentation. It will not be useful for not square shapes but will definitely generate more accurate predictions. - Build some sort of https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANSAC https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANSAC that tries to fits rectangles and/or other shapes as an step to postprocess the predicted mask.
- Aachen 2y ago
  > What was uploaded was what a human approved. Yes, I hit approve on the best one because I was curious to see the actual final polygon. (I then went and fixed it.) You wrote above / I was responding to: >> This is a because the polygon is drawn as a mask in order to overlay it on the image. The actual polygon being uploaded doesn't have the wobbly features. Now you're saying it's my fault for selecting a wonky outline. What's it gonna be, is the preview bad or the resulting polygons? (And the reviewer is bad for approving anything at all?) > my idea was to show the potential, not providing a polished solution I can appreciate that, but if you're aware of this then it shouldn't have a button that unauthenticated users can press to upload the result to the production database. OSM has testing infrastructure if you want to also demo that part (https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ is a version I found on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6)
  - daavoo 2y ago
    > You wrote above / I was responding to: I apologize. I read `it's uploading` and misunderstood like you were saying the tool itself was uploading things. > is the preview bad or the resulting polygons? (And the reviewer is bad for approving anything at all?) It can be one, the other, or both. I was replying to a reference about a specific example in the blog post. In that example, I see wobbly features due to rendering alongside the edges that make it look like the polygon is going to have dozens of nodes. Then, there is an over-simplification of the polygon around the top-right corner (which I didn't consider an error based on my criteria from reviewing manually created pools). > And the reviewer is bad for approving anything at all? I didn't say that. I was trying to assert that the UI/X can be improved to better show what will be uploaded. > but if you're aware of this then it shouldn't have a button that unauthenticated users can press to upload the result to the production database You are right. I was manually reviewing the profile created for the demo every day, but I didn't realize the impact/reach until I saw the first comments here. As soon as I read the first comment, I shut down the demo. As I said in other comments, I will make alternative changes to the demo. > if you want to also demo that part (https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ is a version I found on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6) Thanks for the suggestion, I don't know why I didn't thought about that earlier.

by Aachen 2y ago

daavoo 2y ago

Hi, sorry if the project or narrative gave the wrong impression but my idea was to show the potential, not providing a polished solution. As disclaimed in the demo and code, the example model was trained only with data from Galicia on a Google Colab. A robust enough models would require more data and compute. > it's definitely uploading crap. What was uploaded was what a human approved. > It's useful for finding ones that haven't been mapped but not for drawing them. It can get the 4 corners pretty accurate for pools that are square, many are half round at the ends though I couldn't dedicate enough time on the best way to refine the predictions, but happy to hear and discuss any ideas. Ideas I have are: - Try an oriented bounding box model instead of detection + segmentation. It will not be useful for not square shapes but will definitely generate more accurate predictions. - Build some sort of https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANSAC https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANSAC that tries to fits rectangles and/or other shapes as an step to postprocess the predicted mask.

Aachen 2y ago
> What was uploaded was what a human approved. Yes, I hit approve on the best one because I was curious to see the actual final polygon. (I then went and fixed it.) You wrote above / I was responding to: >> This is a because the polygon is drawn as a mask in order to overlay it on the image. The actual polygon being uploaded doesn't have the wobbly features. Now you're saying it's my fault for selecting a wonky outline. What's it gonna be, is the preview bad or the resulting polygons? (And the reviewer is bad for approving anything at all?) > my idea was to show the potential, not providing a polished solution I can appreciate that, but if you're aware of this then it shouldn't have a button that unauthenticated users can press to upload the result to the production database. OSM has testing infrastructure if you want to also demo that part (https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ is a version I found on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6)
- daavoo 2y ago
  > You wrote above / I was responding to: I apologize. I read `it's uploading` and misunderstood like you were saying the tool itself was uploading things. > is the preview bad or the resulting polygons? (And the reviewer is bad for approving anything at all?) It can be one, the other, or both. I was replying to a reference about a specific example in the blog post. In that example, I see wobbly features due to rendering alongside the edges that make it look like the polygon is going to have dozens of nodes. Then, there is an over-simplification of the polygon around the top-right corner (which I didn't consider an error based on my criteria from reviewing manually created pools). > And the reviewer is bad for approving anything at all? I didn't say that. I was trying to assert that the UI/X can be improved to better show what will be uploaded. > but if you're aware of this then it shouldn't have a button that unauthenticated users can press to upload the result to the production database You are right. I was manually reviewing the profile created for the demo every day, but I didn't realize the impact/reach until I saw the first comments here. As soon as I read the first comment, I shut down the demo. As I said in other comments, I will make alternative changes to the demo. > if you want to also demo that part (https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ is a version I found on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6) Thanks for the suggestion, I don't know why I didn't thought about that earlier.