Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.
On 08.02.2017 02:47, Warin wrote: One mapper has taken on themselves to 'harmonise' some local source tag values. .. the major example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing and bing It is not possible to normalise them once you go beyond the simple example of Bing, and when you combine different sources in quality mapping. But I would see no point in it. Neither do I. They are a descriptive text. Anybody who changes them without touching other data does not compress, he inflates the data by increasing version count. On 08.02.2017 04:10, Tod Fitch wrote: > Is there any reason to use a source tag now that comments are required > on commits/edits? Well more precisely it should not be the changeset comment, it should be the source=* tag in the changeset as opposed to the source=* tag on an individual object. BTW, a source:FACT=* tag on a specific object is still useful, in particular when that source is different from the surrounding, such a geometry of a new building derived from GPS triangulation instead of aerial imagery. Thus I disagree with the wiki editor (9 Apr 2016) who called them 'historic'. Back to the normalisation question, the source becomes complex nowadays. In Berlin we are fortunate that we are allowed to use the geo-portal of the local authority if we attribute them correctly. That portal has plenty of layers and a new aerial picture every year. Thus a typical source tag when I align a street and add some turn:lanes looks as follows: source=local ground survey; Geoportal Berlin (DOP 2011+2016); mapillary because I had seen the street with my eyes, I used the Digital Orthophoto (DOP) from the portal and compared different years, and used somebody's mapillary sequence to verify the turn:lanes. Similarly I might add the cadastre layer I am allowed to use. Thus by comparing these different sources I am able to spot mistakes that are present in the official data. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.
Hi,One interest to do it may be to reduce the volume of the database by improving compression, improve indexing of the values, simplify queries by reducing the need for a request to handle variations of case in a value, simplify statistics by reducing post-analysis... for me there is an added value from a theory point of view.But you're right that in a practical POV the better would be that the editors helps in this work by improving consistency at the begining otherwise it's an endless work. Source:date might be automatically proposed at the creation of a source tag for instance.I'm of those who try to harmonize the values on different tags when it can be done (and there is an agreement on a close list of values) and I might work on source one day (even if today it's an open field).Then, as a trademark, because "Bing" is the official way to write it, then I vote to write it this way and not in another way.Yours, LeTopographeFou De: daveswarth...@gmail.comEnvoyé: 8 février 2017 5:49 AMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: daveswarth...@gmail.com; tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values. Not really. Although such a move appeals to my sense of orderliness and my background in database design. All these weird variations in tag values drive me a little bit crazy but normalizing them is a lot of work that will soon be undermined by people using new free-form source tags anyhow. By the way, I use source=Bing with a capital B.On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, One mapper has taken on themselves to 'harmonise' some local source tag values. There are many more that could be done along the same lines .. the major example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing and bing mm (where is the numerical year and mm is the numerical month). These could all be harmonised to source=Bing (the a majority of tags carry this) with source:date= mm as appropriate. But I would see no point in it. I think people will continue to use there present source tagging practices ... I use lower case bing for example and see no real reason to change. Are there any who see advantages to this 'harmonisation' ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave SwarthoutHomer, AlaskaChiang Mai, ThailandTravel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.
Not really. Although such a move appeals to my sense of orderliness and my background in database design. All these weird variations in tag values drive me a little bit crazy but normalizing them is a lot of work that will soon be undermined by people using new free-form source tags anyhow. By the way, I use source=Bing with a capital B. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > One mapper has taken on themselves to 'harmonise' some local source tag > values. > > > There are many more that could be done along the same lines .. the major > example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing and bing mm (where > is the numerical year and mm is the numerical month). > > These could all be harmonised to source=Bing (the a majority of tags carry > this) with source:date= mm as appropriate. > > But I would see no point in it. I think people will continue to use there > present source tagging practices ... I use lower case bing for example and > see no real reason to change. > > > > Are there any who see advantages to this 'harmonisation' ? > > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.
Is there any reason to use a source tag now that comments are required on commits/edits? On February 7, 2017 5:47:46 PM PST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > > >One mapper has taken on themselves to 'harmonise' some local source tag > >values. > > >There are many more that could be done along the same lines .. the >major >example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing and bing mm (where > is the numerical year and mm is the numerical month). > >These could all be harmonised to source=Bing (the a majority of tags >carry this) with source:date= mm as appropriate. > >But I would see no point in it. I think people will continue to use >there present source tagging practices ... I use lower case bing for >example and see no real reason to change. > > > >Are there any who see advantages to this 'harmonisation' ? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.
Hi, One mapper has taken on themselves to 'harmonise' some local source tag values. There are many more that could be done along the same lines .. the major example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing and bing mm (where is the numerical year and mm is the numerical month). These could all be harmonised to source=Bing (the a majority of tags carry this) with source:date= mm as appropriate. But I would see no point in it. I think people will continue to use there present source tagging practices ... I use lower case bing for example and see no real reason to change. Are there any who see advantages to this 'harmonisation' ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
