On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 25/gen/2014 um 10:05 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt <[email protected]>: >> I would leave the source=Unicef tag in place. > > most mappers do this, that's the reason why you can't trust source tags on > objects ;-) > cheers, > Martin
I don't "trust" source tags. Source tags give me a flavor for where data came from, but just that. Nothing in OSM is "trustable": if anything my goal is to "verify". ----------------------------------------- I find source tags on objects provide interesting and relevant context when editing. Even the somewhat useless "source=bing" tags are useful: I get a sense that was an armchair edit and I'm more likely to take a heavy hand if I have local knowledge. "source=survey" and I'll take greater care figuring one or more prior mapper probably knows something not visible from the air. If there's a tiger:tlid or tiger:cfcc I know i have Tiger data that is probably wrong. "source=osmsync" or "source=Lowes Home Stores" and maybe it's a database sync. "source=unicef" and I might dig around and figure out if there's a master list somewhere. "source:pkey" or any other primary key and I'll know for sure there's an external database somewhere and a possibility of a two way sync. Two way fuzzy sync is an important future capability for OSM as databases get better and more authoritative and the number of objects exceeds the ability of hand mappers to verify them all. ------------------------------- Maybe if most tools automatically showed a sidebar with the changeset, it would reduce the utility of a source tag on the object. But right now I'd rather have source= than not. Removing it sounds like a great way to shave a lot of utility in the name of saving 15 or so bytes per object. _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
