On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Sam Vekemans <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > The reason i didnt include attribution as part of the changeset is > because .... I didnt know how. :) > > i chose to put the 'attribution' tag on each point, line, area map > feature, so that way, anyone editing will immediatly see where it came > from.
Hi Imports List, I want to take what Sam has said out of context here, so this isn't a question of Geobase/Canvec, let's consider the wider issue of attribution on imported data. Should the attribution be on the geo-features (nodes,ways,relations), or on the changeset, on the wiki, all three, or a combination? My take on it is that is should not be on the geo-features, but it should be on the changeset (and the wiki if you like). My reasoning is that we don't store attribution for normal contributors on the geo-features, so we should be consistent with imports. When a contributor creates a new way we don't add tags to the way to say who contributed it, so I don't think we should add attribution tags to ways etc for imports. I think it's fine to say that such meta-data should, if used at all, go into the changeset information instead. (Actually, to keep the parallel the same, it should go into the user account, if a dedicated account is used, but that's something I'm less bothered about). Let's take the case of the software used: Nowadays we put the created_by tag on the changeset, for example, whereas in the past all imports (e.g. TIGER) have put the details of the software used in tags on the features. I think (hope?) we all agree that there shouldn't be a created_by:bulkupload.py on the geo-features any more. So I think we can change our recommendations for where the attribution should go too. What do you all think? Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
