On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Neil Penman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Only the vast majority of these were not sourced from Nearmap (except in > some of the country areas not previously covered by Yahoo). They may have > been updated by somebody using nearmap imagery, mostly trivial changes, but > they would have been originally created via survey or from Yahoo. Certainly > names would not have been sourced from nearmap. Wouldn't it would make more > sense if the source tag was only applied to changesets? Even that is not > ideal as in one changeset multiple sources could be used, ie survey for > names, nearmap for layout. > Hmm, a source tag applied to changesets sort of makes sense, except that I find changesets very nebulous and awkward objects to work with (in Potlatch, anyway). I personally have been doing a fair bit of what you describe, in Melbourne. Mostly fixing stuff that was traced from MMBW - quite a lot of minor road realignments, new dead-ends, roundabouts etc etc. I eventually settled on changing the "source=MMBW" to "source:name=MMBW" and adding "source=nearmap". Sometimes if I'm only changing a couple of points, I'll tag those nodes individually. Still, I add a lot of new stuff too: tracing landuse=retail, adding highway=cycleway, quite a few laneways, and there are still a surprisingly large number of streets missing in Melbourne. Oh, and a few major duplicated roads (eg, Nepean Highway, South Road) need a lot of work: missing service roads, missing cut-throughs, missing junctions, junctions that don't exist... Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
