On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, SomeoneElse <li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk> wrote: > On 16/06/2011 18:00, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this >> is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is >> recommended to use the changeset comments. > > The problem with the changeset "source" tag is that there's no granularity - > one tag applies to the whole edit. Presumably the only time that this would > be valid would be an entirely armchair tracing session with no local > knowledge and no other on-the-ground evidence (surely not recommended) or an > import (which should surely afterwards be tidied up with local knowledge > anyway). > > Using changeset comments is even worse; it's just a bunch of text associated > with a particular edit. If I wanted to know the source for updates for the > Pennine Way (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/63872) I'd need to > fetch the relation history (not feasible via the API I suspect), fetch 209 > changeset details, and manually parse a lump of English text in each one for > something that might be a "source".
I also frequently use multiple sources in a single changeset. I often flip between faster bing imagery and slower to load but better aligned and sometimes more distinct NAIP imagery. Which one I actually trace a feature from depends on multiple factors. Hence I often put source tags on individual objects. And with 84 million of them in the database, I would hardly call this tag "disputed" Toby _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk