thanks. I incorporated some of your annotations on the section 
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.


Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com>
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
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
* country-armchair
as above, but I know the country norms.  Me editing in Glacier
* 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

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 

talk mailing list

Reply via email to