[Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] generalized survey and consequences

David Bannon dbannon at internode.on.net
Tue Jun 10 00:44:13 UTC 2014


To be honest Tod, I don't think we want to add a *:confirmed= tag to
every existing tag over time. 

But as we've both suggested, maybe the solution to Andre's issue is just
to make better use of the date stamps already there ?

David


On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 17:21 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Am I missing the fact that we have history on all changes and you can detect from the history when some tag like surface=unpaved was added to a way?
> 
> So that takes care of the initial survey date. Maybe added a *:confirmed=yes where * is the tag (e.g. surface:confirmed=yes) if it is still unpaved at a later date. And again the change will be tagged with the time and when the *:confirmed tag was added or changed.
> 
> -Tod
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 5:13 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I am not sure that I like (eg) survey:date
> > 
> > A typical road will have a range of data associated with it, lets try it
> > -
> > source=survey
> > name=blah
> > highway=unclassified
> > surface=unpaved
> > lanes=1
> > survey:date=2014-06-10
> > 
> > I guess that makes good sense, but what if the initial source was, say,
> > bing ?
> > 
> > source=bing
> > name=blar
> > highway=unclassified
> > surface=unpaved
> > lanes=1
> > survey:date=2014-06-10
> > 
> > Now, looking at that, does it mean that someone used bing to get the
> > initial data on 10th June or was that a later survey ?  I'd expect the
> > bing mappers (bless them, don't want to start that again!) to time stamp
> > their entries just as much as a survey mapper. But now we have the term
> > 'survey' there even though no survey has taken place.
> > 
> > I'd prefer a simple date stamp approach, date=2014-06-10. In fact,
> > should it be automated ? I have not looked at the raw data for a while,
> > does it include a date stamp we should be using for Andre's purpose ?
> > 
> > (Sorry Andre, cannot remember how to do the mark above the 'e' in your
> > name. Very rude of me.)
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 18:01 +0200, André Pirard wrote:
> >> On 2014-06-09 11:59, Glenn Plas wrote :
> >> 
> >>> On 09-06-14 08:31, André Pirard wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Some data of the map changes often, in particular what's on the
> >>>> road: traffic signs, bus lines etc.
> >>>> It would be interesting if someone tackling a region could
> >>>> determine what in his interests was checked the longest ago.
> >>>> Hence the need for a date at the beginning of the data that is not
> >>>> of the source of information if any but that indicates when that
> >>>> source, visual observation or other was still current last. The
> >>>> someone would deal with the oldest in priority and update that
> >>>> date if that can be said. The data field of the query result would
> >>>> be sorted to determine the oldest ones.
> >>>> Is the source:survey date appropriate for that, pardon my limited
> >>>> English ...
> >>> Hi Andre,
> >>> 
> >>> I think that the correct key is survey:date. 
> >> Thank you for replying and confirming that high precision is needed in
> >> this too fuzzy OSM world.
> >> I found no "survey:" key, if I look for
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/survey, it falls back on key:source
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Survey#Annotation (which is a non
> >> existing label).
> >> What I'm talking about is Key:source and more specifically its phrase
> >> "source:name=survey 10 November 2012".
> >> That is, data consisting of lowercase "survey" followed by a mandatory
> >> one and only single blank...
> >>> KeyMapper 3 also uses it.  
> >> Using an URL to spare 50 people a search, indeed, thanks.
> >> So, either we warn Keymapper that they use unofficial tagging that
> >> escapes an overpass search,
> >> or I still have to learn what many people are trying to teach me: that
> >> OSM is nothing but fuzzy (sending cars the wrong one-way) and that the
> >> overpass query has to be extra huge.
> >> survey:date is not providing for telling what has been 
> >>> It's a good idea to start including this in my regular edits, I'm
> >>> going to add those as well.  There is added value in it.  I think
> >>> it's best to do this on the changeset but that might go unnoticed
> >>> when editing, also in josm.
> >> It's useful in JOSM to save ourselves checking the same element 36
> >> times but mostly with overpass to make oneself a to do list.
> >>> But that tag on every object seems like overkill.
> >> Of course, only what often "changes without notice".
> >> 
> >> At first sight, the overpass API is able to use a regexp to look for
> >> data but not for keys.
> >> Any trick?
> >> 
> >> André.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





More information about the Tagging mailing list