On 21/3/20 11:02 pm, ael wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Warin wrote:
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.
"source=average of multiple gps surveys, high accuracy"
Be really descriptive... the 's' on the end of gps surveys is really easy to
miss.
Well, yes, and I do quite often expand the source tag to try to
convey more. But in your example "high" accuracy is a problem.
If I was using differential gps with cm accuracy, I would call
that "high" accuracy. In the present case, the accuracy is
not really known, but probably approaching a meter.
But I guess that sort of thing could be included in a source tag,
although free form text might be better in a note tag.
Is not the source tag free form? Indeed any OSM tag is 'free form' - i.e. "Any tags
you like".
I don't think any one uses the source tag other than mappers looking at where
the data came from. As such it can be anything you think suitable.
The 'high accuracy' is a relative term simply there to help those that don't
understand the previous 'average of multiple gps surveys'
But my impression is that many armchair mappers just don't look.
In this case any tags will be ignored. Pointless coming up with another tag.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
