I always put survey+imagery in the last 3 cases. Yves
Le 23 mars 2020 18:43:23 GMT+01:00, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> a écrit : >> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing >Daylight Map Distribution] >> From: Frederik Ramm >> >>> Nothing against the idea but what happened to the good old source >tag >>> where source=survey would point to mappers on the ground, and >>> source=XYZ >>> aerial imagery would point to armchairing? > >I'm very sympathetic to knowing the on-ground-ness of a change. But I >think it's shades of gray. This list illustrates what I mean: > >* armchair > >a place I have never been to, and which is so far away that I am not >familiar with the customs. An example would be me (US) editing in >Africa. > >* country-armchair > >as above, but I know the country norms. Me editing in Glacier National >Park. > >* local-armchair > >as above, but I know the region norms. If I edited some town in MA >that I haven't visited (perhaps because I was going to visit), but I >generally know how things are. > >* visited but mapping done by imagery > >Here, I am editing a place where I've been at some point reasonably >recently and have some clue, but my edits are based on imagery. >However, my recollection is good enough to avoid most of the armchair >issues. An example is me fixing up crosswalks and sidewalks two towns >away, but not from field mapping notes. I don't consider this >armchair, but it's iffy. > >* editing soon after a visit > >I got someplace, maybe make notes, maybe remember, and edit based on >some combination of imagery, gpx tracks, notes and memory. I think >this is squarely not armchair. > >* editing while there > >Actually using an editor while being in the place being edited. > > > >I would basically split this into three armchair and three not >armchair. > > > > >So basically I think source including imagery does not really imply >"armchairing", in that the use of imagery is not the point, but a lack >of familiarity with what's on the ground. I almost always load and >look >at imagery when editing after being in the field. I line up ways from >imagery when that works, becuase I have come to believe from experience >(with specific imagery sources) that this is more accurate than my gps >tracks. > >(I have been experimenting with raw GPS data and post-processed PPP >solutions, and those I think are close to good imagery.) > > > > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
