<html dir="ltr"><head></head><body style="text-align:left; direction:ltr;" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#2e3436" link="#1b6acb" vlink="#2e3436"><div>Hey,</div><div><br></div><div>thanks. I incorporated some of your annotations on the section <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset/Governance#1._Differencing_between_survey_and_armchair_mapping">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset/Governance#1._Differencing_between_survey_and_armchair_mapping</a> 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.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheerio</div><div><br></div><div>Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>-----Original Message-----</div><div><b>From</b>: Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:Greg%20Troxel%20%3cgdt@lexort.com%3e">gdt@lexort.com</a>></div><div><b>To</b>: <a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a></div><div><b>Subject</b>: Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing Daylight Map Distribution]</div><div><b>Date</b>: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:43:23 -0400</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><pre>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing Daylight Map Distribution]</pre><pre>From: Frederik Ramm </pre><pre><br></pre><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><pre>Nothing against the idea but what happened to the good old source tag</pre><pre>where source=survey would point to mappers on the ground, and</pre><pre>source=XYZ</pre><pre>aerial imagery would point to armchairing?</pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre><br></pre><pre>I'm very sympathetic to knowing the on-ground-ness of a change. But I</pre><pre>think it's shades of gray. This list illustrates what I mean:</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>* armchair</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>a place I have never been to, and which is so far away that I am not</pre><pre>familiar with the customs. An example would be me (US) editing in Africa.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>* country-armchair</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>as above, but I know the country norms. Me editing in Glacier National</pre><pre>Park.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>* local-armchair</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>as above, but I know the region norms. If I edited some town in MA</pre><pre>that I haven't visited (perhaps because I was going to visit), but I</pre><pre>generally know how things are.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>* visited but mapping done by imagery</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>Here, I am editing a place where I've been at some point reasonably</pre><pre>recently and have some clue, but my edits are based on imagery.</pre><pre>However, my recollection is good enough to avoid most of the armchair</pre><pre>issues. An example is me fixing up crosswalks and sidewalks two towns</pre><pre>away, but not from field mapping notes. I don't consider this</pre><pre>armchair, but it's iffy.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>* editing soon after a visit</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>I got someplace, maybe make notes, maybe remember, and edit based on</pre><pre>some combination of imagery, gpx tracks, notes and memory. I think</pre><pre>this is squarely not armchair.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>* editing while there</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>Actually using an editor while being in the place being edited.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre>I would basically split this into three armchair and three not armchair.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre>So basically I think source including imagery does not really imply</pre><pre>"armchairing", in that the use of imagery is not the point, but a lack</pre><pre>of familiarity with what's on the ground. I almost always load and look</pre><pre>at imagery when editing after being in the field. I line up ways from</pre><pre>imagery when that works, becuase I have come to believe from experience</pre><pre>(with specific imagery sources) that this is more accurate than my gps</pre><pre>tracks.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>(I have been experimenting with raw GPS data and post-processed PPP</pre><pre>solutions, and those I think are close to good imagery.)</pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre>_______________________________________________</pre><pre>talk mailing list</pre><a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org"><pre>talk@openstreetmap.org</pre></a><pre><br></pre><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk"><pre>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</pre></a><pre><br></pre><div><br></div></body></html>