[talk-au] Gatton, QLD

[BlueMM]

John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at ...> writes:
> 2009/9/23 BlueMM <bluemm1975-osm at ...>:
> > I think the preferred attribution scheme is to use source=gps as that is 
> > what the actual source is & survey is ambiguous with proper survey 
> > equipment.
> 
> No, source=survey isn't ambiguous at all it's spelt out clearly on the
> map features page:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation

"just because it's on the wiki..."

Seriously, I think most on this list know the wiki isn't some authority on OSM,
it's editable by anyone (even I added the source:name/ref tags to Map Features).
When I used to read the Talk lists (now contains too many posts) some of the
serious OSM contributors distrusted or even shunned the wiki, because anyone can
come along and document anything, including voting on tagging policy using only
a tiny fraction of users to vote (there is a lot of distrust in voting). Of
course, opinions may of changed in the last 6 months or so.

Anyway, back to the point, the source=survey issue was brought up a while ago on
Talk and a few contributors that I respect for their opinions said that
source=gps would be better when collecting the data from GPS (presumably
consumer grade GPS). I'd argue that source=survey is ambiguous because you have
to look up the definition to discover what it means. Imagine going up to a
non-OSM user and asking them to guess what was used for collecting mapping data
when it is marked as source=survey. I envisage the day when more edits come from
new users than experienced contributors, especially as barriers are being
reduced over time, therefore I think reducing ambiguities is important.

That's my opinion, but I don't see the harm in being more accurate, especially
when people are allowed to tag anyway they want. I have & will continue to
recommend source=gps for those sourcing their gps data. BTW, most ways & POI's
aren't sourced anyway, so will have to be retraced or rechecked anyway :-(

BlueMM