On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +0000, Devonshire wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always seemed
like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people re-aligning things based
on a bad phone GPS or badly aligned aerial imagery is impossible and even realising that
things have been incorrectly moved is random at best.
I agree entirely and have often wished for exactly that. I sometimes use
source=gps_surveys (plural) to try to convey that this is not just one
random gps trace.
In this case, I just had source=gps_survey.
"source=average of multiple gps surveys, high accuracy"
Be really descriptive... the 's' on the end of gps surveys is really easy to
miss.
I too regret the awful smartphone (and satnav) gps traces which suggest
all gps is rubbish. I try not to upload any gps which is not reasonably
accurate. And add a note if the gps quality is poor when it still has
value, perhaps because there are no other traces in the area.
I suppose that we ought to start a discussion on the tagging list to
suggest
source:accuracy = low|medium|high|differential
Why? This can be placed in to source=phone for location, poor accuracy. This
then is where you look for information on the source ... rather than yet
another key.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
