[Tagging] wetap specific tags

[Warin]

On 24/03/18 00:09, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> The automatic "source=wetap" is not correct. If you check with the app 
> that a fountain is working, and that sets source=wetap, this is 
> factually wrong. Also the concept of source=whateverapp is not 
> correct, when whateeverapp is a tool to enter data which come from the 
> user of the app. So in most cases, where there is no pre-existent 
> source tag, you could think of manually inserting a source=survey tag.
"source=survey, entry by wetap" would be more descriptive. I have no 
problem with documenting the entry by an app - it is hardly spam as it 
is not rendered.
>
> In the specific case of drinking fountains, this seems to be the 
> attempt to insert something that indicates that on the date of the 
> change the fountain was working, but that needs to be a different tag.
>
> And this raises the obvious question: Do we have any way of tagging 
> "tag value verified by survey today" ? This would be helpful in many 
> situations. I am thinking about the repeated discussions about 
> explicily tagging default values in order to underline that the value 
> has been checked.
>
> On 23 March 2018 at 13:32, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I noticed that the wetap app sets tags in a "wetap" name space for
>     properties for which we already have established tags. Here's an
>     example:
>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/304151931/history
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/304151931/history>
>
>     Specifically, it sets the tag
>     wetap:status=working (IMHO for an amenity this is implied,
>     otherwise it is disused:amenity if the drinking fountain is not
>     running but still there).
>     wetap:photo (we use the image tag)
>
>     it also sets a "source=wetap" tag on every object that was touched
>     (e.g. if you confirm an existing object as wetap:status=working,
>     it will put a source=wetap tag on the object).
>

But then if you look at the history the past sources can be found.
I think this change to the source could be a good thing as it documents 
the source of the present tags.. provided all the tags were changed.
>
>
>     The tags are not documented AFAIK.
>
>     What is your opinion for this, shall we tolerate alternative
>     tagging to be introduced systematically by third party apps, when
>     there is already an established tag with supposedly (undocumented)
>     the same meaning?
>

Matter of moving the current app over to the documented/accepted tags so 
future entries 'fit'.

Changing past entries? I have not thought of.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180324/22e6c5f3/attachment.html>