<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>I've been reading import proposals on the imports list for a while now and the recommendation I keep seeing there is to add source tags on the changesets, which is what I started since several months now. So now that I'm preparing the osm file for BusCo, I'd prefer to simply add the instruction to the importers to add source on the changeset upon uploading, instead of adding it to each and every of 30000 objects and that's only for half of a small country. On the northern side there are another 400000.<br>
<br></div>Of course, if the person performing the import wants to add source to all the objects they add they can simply do Ctrl-a to select all objects, add source=whatever and save the file after downloading it.<br><br>
</div>What I'd suggest to do to make it clear to which object a source tag from the changeset belongs is, transfer the stops from the calculated layer to the working layer, give them all a nudge to where they belong and change the surrounding objects according to the aerial imagery. Then when done, do:<br>
<br></div>Ctrl-f<br></div>modified highway=bus_stop<br><br></div>then Upload selection, with source=TEC, Bing2011<br><br></div>Then perform a general upload for all the rest with source=Bing2011<br><br></div><div>My preference is to not add a date to TEC, it will always be the latest version that was available when the upload was performed anyway.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>There are other ways to check whether a stop needs to be updated (comparison with current data downloaded with Overpass API) This procedure is already in place, with output going to a wiki page, with links that can be clicked in a convenient way to edit with JOSM remote control.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Jo<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-06-26 14:21 GMT+02:00 Dan S <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danstowell+osm@gmail.com" target="_blank">danstowell+osm@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2014-06-26 12:44 GMT+01:00 André Pirard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:A.Pirard.Papou@gmail.com" target="_blank">A.Pirard.Papou@gmail.com</a>></span>:<div class="">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi, I wonder if <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source" target="_blank">this phrase
without an explanation link</a> contains appropriate instructions
(or just press news):<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><b>Since the introduction of changesets
these tags are often added as <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset" title="Changeset" target="_blank">changeset</a> tags rather than in the
features themselves.</b></blockquote>
It sounds like ("rather than") source tags in objects must now be
replaced by source tags in changesets.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Hi Andre,<br><br>The sentence says changeset tags are "often" used in preference, and in your restatement you have converted "often" to "must now be replaced by". That is a massive difference, and I feel you've misread. I think the sentence in the wiki strikes the correct balance.<br>
</div><div class=""><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
While doing so may be appropriate to for huge bulk imports, I don't
think it's always, even generally, the case.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I agree.<br><br></div><div class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Suppose an osm file built from version 2014_04 of BusCo bus stops
data.<br>
The OSM contributors are invited to copy each object to OSM and to
check the data, esp. coordinates.<br>
Should:<br>
<ul>
<li>this file's objects contain source=BusCo 2014-04 (ISO date)<br>
</li>
<li>or the contributor be requested to add that tag to the
changesets for each and every update</li>
</ul>
<p>In the first case, the tagging will be done without mistakes and
the source will be very apparent on the main OSM Web map not only
for the reader to see but also for overpass to filter which data
belongs to BusCo and even which is not yet at the latest update.<br>
</p>
<p>In the mistake prone, second case, the mapper will be asked to
force himself in different updates for BusCo and for other
necessary updates that he will inevitably meet in the process, and
the net result of that hassle will be a misplaced source tag with
regard to visibility and overpass.<br>
</p>
<p>Which is the best method? Or is there another one? <br></p></div></blockquote></div><div>I personally would say that your changeset source tags should only list the sources that have been used to make the changes you have made. In other words, your option 2 shouldn't be recommended. In the case you give, I would recommend to leave object source tags as they are, and add changeset tags listing any extra sources that the contributor used for their changes. I know this feels odd because the "total" source of the OSM data ends up split between object and changeset, but I think it's acceptable way to progress, and it definitely remains possible for a machine ot calculate the "total sources list".<br>
<br></div><div class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</p>
I think that changeset source tagging is only appropriate to
mechanical imports and that the above phrase should say so or link
to some reading that does.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I disagree. When I do edits using a single source, it makes a lot of sense to put the source tag on the changeset. When I do edits using multiple sources, it makes a lot of sense to put the source tags on the objects.<br>
<br></div><div class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
It seems strange to have to split updates one per object so that the
correct source tags are present on each when they could equivalently
and more appropriately be on the object itself.<br>
Typical, compared to the variety of object source tags format, is
this scarce instruction in <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset" title="Changeset" target="_blank">changeset</a>:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ul>
<li> <tt style="background-color:#dde;white-space:pre-wrap" dir="ltr"><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source" title="Key:source" target="_blank">source</a>=*</tt> – specify the source
for a group of edits
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Typically, "source for" does not say "source of" what. Of the
objects or of the edits as a whole import?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Good spot. So the text needs improving. I've edited the sentence to try and improve it. Obviously I've edited it using my own understanding of the consensus idea of the tag, so if I'm wrong let's just keep improving it :)<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Dan</div></font></span></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>