[Tagging] New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

bkil bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com
Mon Jul 1 20:31:43 UTC 2019

Be my guest:


On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:30 PM Fernando Trebien
<fernando.trebien at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) "Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile object"
> >
> > This is certainly true, but it duplicates advice in the previous
> > section, so I've removed it.
> I think the existing advice was better indeed, so +1 for removing this.
> > 1) "Check the history of important objects"
> >
> > "Before making significant changes to important objects (in particular
> > settlements, administrative boundaries, major buildings, tourist
> > attractions,long route relations etc), check their history. Who did
> > this and why? Was this an experienced contributor or a newbie?
> > Previous editors may have valuable insights to offer on why things are
> > currently tagged the way they are."
> >
> > I don't find this information helpful for new mappers.
> >
> > What is the "history" in this context? I don't think it would be clear
> > to new mappers - it seems to suggest changeset comments
> >
> > What is an "important object?"
> I think I see what concerns that mapper as important. I've seen new
> mappers deleting place nodes by accident and reinserting them,
> creating objects that are not linked to the edit history of the former
> objects. Of course, I've also seen this with less salient features
> too.
> While OSM does not have the concept of notability, some kinds of
> mistakes prompt the community more readily than others. For example,
> accidentally removing part of a motorway is likely to be discovered
> and fixed very fast (also making some people a little annoyed), while
> accidentally removing part of a residential road may take years to be
> noticed and fixed, depending on the level of OSM contributions (very
> high in Germany, low where I am in Brazil). Errors on administrative
> boundaries often show up while converting the data for offline usage,
> which some apps do daily, but with JOSM and iD today this is not easy
> to do unintentionally. Deleting a tourist attraction also prompts a
> quick reaction, as the attraction is searched way more often than,
> say, the median household building.
> I've often been told to explain certain kinds of changes in changeset
> comments. The only way mappers can become aware of such comments is by
> reading the history. Thus, reading the history is good practice, in
> fact for all objects, but it adds a lot of extra work, mostly because
> our current tools cannot display the history of every small object
> (changes to geometry, tags, and changeset comments) in a way that is
> easy/quick to read.
> I've often recommended using note=* and source:*=* tags for the more
> important justifications as they are more visible to mappers, but a
> careless mapper may make changes ignoring those as well, as they are
> not very visible in all editors. The wiki prescriptively discourages
> the use of source:*=* since 2016, but the OSM Tag History service
> tells me that usage of source:*=* tags continues to increase
> worldwide, so I'm note sure it can really be described as a
> "historical" practice.
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list