Hey, thanks. I incorporated some of your annotations on the section https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset/Governance#1._Differencing_between_survey_and_armchair_mapping and simplified it. You're right, It's shades of gray because one has to argue for himself/herself, if what she/he has done is survey- or armchair mapping. That's why I think simplify should be kept in mind. I also hope that editors will someday help mappers to create good changeset comments and therefore providing a guide to mappers so they can easily categorize their changesets and making it easier for others to double check and to apply corrections where necessary and informing the mapper of what has been done wrong and how to prevent that from happening again.
Cheerio Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram -----Original Message----- From: Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing Daylight Map Distribution] Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:43:23 -0400 > 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 > > tagwhere source=survey would point to mappers on the ground, > > andsource=XYZaerial imagery would point to armchairing? I'm very sympathetic to knowing the on-ground-ness of a change. But Ithink 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 notfamiliar 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 NationalPark. * local-armchair as above, but I know the region norms. If I edited some town in MAthat I haven't visited (perhaps because I was going to visit), but Igenerally know how things are. * visited but mapping done by imagery Here, I am editing a place where I've been at some point reasonablyrecently and have some clue, but my edits are based on imagery.However, my recollection is good enough to avoid most of the armchairissues. An example is me fixing up crosswalks and sidewalks two townsaway, but not from field mapping notes. I don't consider thisarmchair, but it's iffy. * editing soon after a visit I got someplace, maybe make notes, maybe remember, and edit based onsome combination of imagery, gpx tracks, notes and memory. I thinkthis 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 lackof familiarity with what's on the ground. I almost always load and lookat imagery when editing after being in the field. I line up ways fromimagery when that works, becuase I have come to believe from experience(with specific imagery sources) that this is more accurate than my gpstracks. (I have been experimenting with raw GPS data and post-processed PPPsolutions, and those I think are close to good imagery.) _______________________________________________talk mailing listt...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk