## 3 Results
### Evaluation of Results
The user may have selected a point accidentally. Therefore, after pointing to a point on the map, a dialog box is displayed to confirm the selected point. Pointing to the wrong point on the map results in a corresponding message. After pointing to the right point on the map, a dialog box is displayed to evaluate the level of naturalness of the geo-description from the user's point of view. After the user performs the task, the quality of the geo-description is evaluated in two ways:  
1. Accuracy of geo-description  
One point is awarded for indicating the correct place on the building map. One point is deducted for indicating an incorrect place on the map. This method of evaluation has two purposes:  
1. Including the first choice in each test makes it possible to detect attempts at forceful or hap-hazard solutions (clicking on each point on the map in turn until guessed). 2. Including all choices in each test (not just the first choice) allows us to isolate particular imperfect geo-descriptions. A geo-description receives a worse grade the more difficult it is to identify the location to which it refers. Predictably, some geo-descriptions are insufficient to guess the correct location in the space the first time. This may be due to the poor quality of these geo-descriptions or the difficulty in describing the area in question. Of course, the geo-description alone does not guarantee high accuracy. The quality of the cartographic message is also of great importance, but this aspect was ignored in the first stage of the research. 2. Level of naturalness of geo-description on a scale of 1 to 10  
For the evaluation, it was assumed that a value of 1 indicates a very low level of naturalness (the feeling that the description is not formulated in a way typical of humans), and a value of 10 indicates a very high level of naturalness (the feeling that the description is formulated in a way typical of humans). Any other value indicates that the user is unsure whether the geo-description was prepared by a human or generated by a computer. The higher the score, the higher the level of naturalness, according to the user. This evaluation method indicates the most and least natural language geo-descriptions. The random order of the geo-descriptions presented makes it difficult for the user to guess the answer based on the rating of the previous geo-description. Suppose the user rated the first geo-description as very natural (rating of 10). If the geo-descriptions were grouped according to how they were generated (expert, google/flan-t5-xxl language model, ChatGPT chatbot version 3.5), the user would be able to rate the naturalness of the second and third geo-descriptions without reading their content. After the test is completed, a summary screen is displayed:  
* The number of place-pointing tasks carried out;
* The average accuracy level of each geo-description, without taking into account the number of all wrong hits (rating on a scale of 0-1);
* The average accuracy level of each geo-description, including the number of all wrong hits;
* The average level of naturalness of each geo-description (on a scale of 1 to 10);
* How each of the nine geo-descriptions was generated (expert, google/flan-t5-xxl, ChatGPT 3.5). **Phase 3: Conducting preliminary user studies (Proof of Concept)**  
Based on the previously prepared data and application, a preliminary survey was conducted on users to check the validity of the developed survey tool and the correctness of the adopted survey method. It should be emphasized that this was not a target study planned as a separate task; it is also not described in this article. The study involved 66 students (28 women and 38 men). Each user was asked to test all six location geo-descriptions generated at the outset differently (by humans and using NLP). The experiment was successful. All the people involved in testing the app completed the task, and the purpose of the study and the way the app was operated were clear.