[HOT] paths, tracks and unclassified in West Africa
tgertin at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 21:44:00 UTC 2015
The source tag is a good option to add for surveys or local knowledge. It has been used for the Malawi Flood Preparedness project (http://hotosm.org/projects/osm_community_mapping_for_flood_preparedness_in_malawi <http://hotosm.org/projects/osm_community_mapping_for_flood_preparedness_in_malawi>). If you look for example at this node (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3057310198 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3057310198>). You will see the tag ‘source:survey’ and also in the changeset you see the tag ‘source:Survey of 2014’.
A two-tiered system might make things more confusing. However, I do think that adding a tag that specifies ‘uncertainty’ is a good idea. I e-mailed the tagging listserv earlier this year and they pointed me to the ‘fixme’ tag (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fixme <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fixme>). I then created the Probable features wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Probable_features <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Probable_features>) that basically says the fixme tag can be used to specify that a feature needs additional validation. I would like to hear opinions on this, I haven't asked for any previously.
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not the source tag? If it indicates survey or local knowledge instead of or as well as remote imagery, credibility is improved.
> Tom Taylor
> On 16/07/2015 1:02 PM, john whelan wrote:
>> I think a two tiered system would work well. Officialverified=yes
>> perhaps? I don't think rendering is an issue. Certainly I've seen JOSM
>> used to render or view maps on a lap top for an area. I was quite
>> surprised but the person said an off line map was easily searchable and
>> you could select and see all the tags.
>> Cheerio John
>> On 16 July 2015 at 11:13, Steve Bower <steve at worldvista.net
>> <mailto:steve at worldvista.net>> wrote:
>> A fundamental problem is that the current road/path tagging scheme
>> does not distinguish between:
>> •"rough" tagging used for remote mapping during activations, and
>> •"detailed" tagging based on local knowledge.
>> Current tags are used for both, which leads to confusion since the
>> custom "activation" definition may differ somewhat from the
>> "permanent" definition. Also, there is future confusion since the
>> level of detail (local knowledge) is not recorded.
>> A 2-tier scheme could solve that, with separate tags for "rough"
>> tagging, and "detailed" tags based on local knowledge.
>> Another solution would be a separate tag recording the level of
>> certainty or verification, but a 2-tier scheme might be easier to
>> manage and to render.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT