<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>:<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>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><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>I agree.<br><br></div><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>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><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>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> </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>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 :)<br>
<br></div><div>Dan</div></div><br></div></div>