[Imports] ACT, Australia Buildings Import

[Rafael Avila Coya]

Just to say I agree with Martin in that source in objects is not only by no means legacy, but that me too I add it to the objects systematically, because I find it better than adding the source to changesets (that I do too!).

The discussion about source in objects yes or no is old, and no agreement, so just let people decide what they think it's better, whether for normal mapping or for imports.

Cheers,

Rafael.

El 27 de agosto de 2018 3:57:10 CEST, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> escribió:
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 00:43, Michael Reichert <osm-ml at michreichert.de>
>wrote:
>
>> The source:geometry=* tag should go to the changeset, not to all the
>> objects. It is the purpose of a changeset to group changes.
>
>
>I'd put it on the changeset as well.
>
>
>> source=*
>> tags on objects exist a lot in the database but they are legacy.
>>
>
>I wouldn't call them legacy, every day I and other mappers are adding
>new
>source tags directly to objects. Either either way is fine, the main
>local
>mapper adds them to the object directly, so this is being consistent.
>
>Having the tags on the object means it's quicker and easier to identify
>the
>source, instead of digging through the changeset history, and the risk
>that
>sometimes things change and the source isn't updated.
>
>
>> The Import Guidelines require a wiki page describing the import. A
>> discussion on this mailing list (and from my point of view also the
>> local community buy-in) requires this wiki page to be complete.
>>
>
>This email is the community by-in email too, so I'll wait a bit longer
>to
>see if there is any feedback. I'll do the wiki page after I get further
>feedback.

-- 
Enviado desde mi dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Por favor, disculpa mi brevedad.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20180827/b0211cd4/attachment.html>