<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/03/18 00:09, Volker Schmidt
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7Fa-oM+Y02Tkyc9Eigsf2rMqjKjmp54iHVp_8D9p5iFg@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>
          <div>The automatic "source=wetap" is not correct. If you check
            with the app that a fountain is working, and that sets
            source=wetap, this is factually wrong. Also the concept of
            source=whateverapp is not correct, when whateeverapp is a
            tool to enter data which come from the user of the app. So
            in most cases, where there is no pre-existent source tag,
            you could think of manually inserting a source=survey tag.<br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    "source=survey, entry by wetap" would be more descriptive. I have no
    problem with documenting the entry by an app - it is hardly spam as
    it is not rendered. <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7Fa-oM+Y02Tkyc9Eigsf2rMqjKjmp54iHVp_8D9p5iFg@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          In the specific case of drinking fountains, this seems to be
          the attempt to insert something that indicates that on the
          date of the change the fountain was working, but that needs to
          be a different tag.<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        And this raises the obvious question: Do we have any way of
        tagging "tag value verified by survey today" ? This would be
        helpful in many situations. I am thinking about the repeated
        discussions about explicily tagging default values in order to
        underline that the value has been checked.<br>
        <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">On 23 March 2018 at 13:32, Martin
            Koppenhoefer <span dir="ltr"><<a
                href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank"
                moz-do-not-send="true">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>></span>
            wrote:<br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div>
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div>
                        <div>
                          <div>I noticed that the wetap app sets tags in
                            a "wetap" name space for properties for
                            which we already have established tags.
                            Here's an example:<br>
                            <a
                              href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/304151931/history"
                              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>node/304151931/history</a><br>
                            <br>
                          </div>
                          Specifically, it sets the tag<br>
                          wetap:status=working (IMHO for an amenity this
                          is implied, otherwise it is disused:amenity if
                          the drinking fountain is not running but still
                          there).<br>
                        </div>
                        wetap:photo (we use the image tag)<br>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                      it also sets a "source=wetap" tag on every object
                      that was touched (e.g. if you confirm an existing
                      object as wetap:status=working, it will put a
                      source=wetap tag on the object).<br>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    But then if you look at the history the past sources can be found. <br>
    I think this change to the source could be a good thing as it
    documents the source of the present tags.. provided all the tags
    were changed. <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7Fa-oM+Y02Tkyc9Eigsf2rMqjKjmp54iHVp_8D9p5iFg@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div>
                  <div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>The tags are not documented AFAIK.<br>
                    </div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    What is your opinion for this, shall we tolerate
                    alternative tagging to be introduced systematically
                    by third party apps, when there is already an
                    established tag with supposedly (undocumented) the
                    same meaning?<br>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Matter of moving the current app over to the documented/accepted
    tags so future entries 'fit'. <br>
    <br>
    Changing past entries? I have not thought of. <br>
  </body>
</html>