[OSM-dev] A new take on the "mutable" idea

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Frederik Ramm<frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Frederik Ramm<frederik at remote.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If their editor would inform them that they are editing the
>>> administrative
>>> border as copied from some official publication, then they still *could*
>>> edit the border if they e.g. had information about said official
>>> publication
>>> being wrong or outdated, but they would likely refrain from editing it
>>> otherwise. Which I'd find desirable.
>
>> isn't this what the "source" tag is for?
>
> It is very easy to edit objects without ever looking at the source tag. If
> that were made impossible, yes, then you are right; but I think it is
> impractical.

more impractical than inventing a new tag and trying to ensure that
all editors support it?

> If we were to agree on using some magical keyword inside the source tag that
> would cause the editor to somehow highlight the object or present a pop-up
> when the object is being edited - maybe.

i think we have a philosophical difference here - i don't think we
should be presenting users with warnings, especially if these
"special" tags would be present on most imported data (e.g: CanVec,
etc...). therefore, almost all edits in Canada would cause warnings to
pop up. as sly pointed out, this would cause a lot of users to become
desensititised.

> I've often been thinking that there
> ought to be something special about the source tag anyway, because many
> times, if you edit something, the source tag should be amended, replaced, or
> removed, and people tend to forget.

yep. i know i do. maybe the tag should go on the changeset, though? in
my experience i've only used one set of surveying methods for any one
upload / editing session.

> Lots of coastline for example is still
> flagged to come from PGS, when in truth it does not bear any resemblance to
> the PGS data any longer.

yep. there's loads of TIGER which is tagged with the TIGER source tags
when it's actually been traced from Y! imagery.

> Still no replacement for the second part of my suggestion which would have
> provded an indication about how much diligence went into an edit though,
> unless you want to claim that any edit that does not change the source tag
> as well is automatically dubious or so...

i don't see how your original suggestion provides any information
about diligence, other than that the user is a member of a privileged
few who know the "secret rule" or use a particular editor which
handles it for them.

i'd be all in favour of an editor which put source tags on changesets
(and removed them from elements), allowing users to say "i surveyed
using this GPS unit, the traces are available here: ..." or "traced
from Y! imagery", etc...

cheers,

matt