[Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

Tom Pfeifer t.pfeifer at computer.org
Tue Aug 23 12:27:44 UTC 2016

Bjoern Hassler wrote on 2016/08/23 14:02:
> Hi Martin, hi Marc,
> thanks for the response. I suppose another way of looking at it would be to say that the site's existence is verifiable from satellite images. Is there a tag for that? It could always be added to the note tag, but a structured tag may be better. E.g.
> "visible:bing2012=1" or "verified:bing2012=1".
> Alternatively maybe "source=bing' would also be ok? Strictly speaking, bing may not have been the source, as the data may come from a ground survey. But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" if the structure is visible on bing? I suppose
> "verified:bing2012" may be clearer, and avoid confusion?
> Btw. I'm not proposing a new tag, just seeing whether there is an existing tag I can use.

I prefer nowadays to keep track of those activities in the changeset comment and the changeset source field.
Putting it on each object clutters it with redundant information, and the first mapper verifies the shape,
the next the height and the next the colour, so in the end you don't know anymore which action it refers
to, and people might use different layers for mapping/verification.

I only use source, source:geometry, source:name tags on the object if it is a method different from the
surroundings, such as the new road not yet visible in aerial imagery, with source=gps-trace, or a new building with
source=visual estimation.


More information about the Tagging mailing list