[Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

Bjoern Hassler bjohas+mw at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 14:27:43 UTC 2016


Hi Martin,

I am planning to review the objects systematically, and sometimes the
tagging doesn't give much information. Also, as we know, sometimes an
object is added, but the accuracy may not be that high.

So - when I review an object (with no source information provided in the
tags), and can clearly see it on bing, then would it not be useful to add
this information to the tags, as a verification? We don't know how it was
originally added, but the satellite view verifies this.

(For the objects in question, as they are outdoors towers, and as long as
they have reasonable preservation, they are very clearly visible. I
appreciate the earlier comment that it's not possible to validate arbitrary
archaeological sites like that.)

Bjoern

On 23 August 2016 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 23 ago 2016, alle ore 14:02, Bjoern Hassler <
> bjohas+mw at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> any ground survey is much more reliable than an assessment from remote,
> that's why I would put survey in the source tag when I did perform a
> survey. Maybe I just don't get the point why you would add bing tags for a
> site where you have been to. What is the scope?
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160823/fa89147d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list