2013/5/21 Dave F. <[email protected]> > On 18/05/2013 16:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Point is it doesn't really belong in the data, because it is metadata. >> > > This is a false argument. There's nothing wrong with metadata in the > database if it's *useful*. > > When I go for a walk I survey. I use a gps. When mapping the data I use > Bing imagery to confirm where I went & add details I couldn't fully see > like hedges etc. I then use the internet to search for names of shops & > places that I forgot. All different sources within one changeset edit.
Yes, you could either split your edits into similar edits (useful IMHO, as it introduces some logical system into the way you perform uploads) or combine the sources into something like "survey and tracing from bing aerial imagery and websearch" IMHO it is useful to a) know from when the aerial imagery was you traced from b) know whether the mapper knew the area or only traced from aerial imagery c) know whether the mapping was based on a recent survey d) know in particular cases like import from supposedly precise sources (e.g. cadastre) where the data was taken from e) know the reason when an object gets modified or deleted (e.g. the pub was closed) f) know the source of hard to survey real world objects (e.g. undersea cables, underground stuff) g) store the source of data that requires some kind of attribution But in the end I think this whole source thing is completely overestimated. In the end the following mappers will compare what is on the map with what they know or believe to be there in reality, and in case of discrepancies will probably modify the map based on their findings, regardless of any source tag. What do you propose to do with source tags found on an object when you modify this object based on a different source? cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
