[Talk-ca] Removing source=* when editing

[Jarek Piórkowski]

This aligns with my practice as well. I frequently encounted it on buildings, where the source might have been Bing when the building was first drawn 14 years ago, but if the geometry has been changed since, of course it makes sense to remove the source tag on building.

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source which mentions that these days it is more common to specify source on the changesets, rather than on individual objects. This is done automatically or semi-automatically by editing software, and avoids the problem of outdated source=* tags persisting on objects.

I wouldn't go around removing source=* from objects I am _not_ otherwise editing, though.

--Jarek

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, at 11:20, Lee via Talk-ca wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I'm curious to know what general consensus is when editing an existing 
> feature that includes a source=* tag.  I am inclined to remove the tag, 
> but wonder what others are doing, and what is generally acceptable 
> practise.
> 
> For example: While editing an existing road segment with the tag 
> source=Geobase, I improve its geometry and add additional tags. While 
> source=Geobase may have been it's original source on import, it no 
> longer reflects the feature currently in the database.  And if 
> source=Geobase is important to retain as metadata, it remains in the 
> version history for historical context.
> 
> So I have been removing the source=* tag on features I edit. (Usually).  
> Does this fit with community expectations?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Lee.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20240323/8573a8e8/attachment.htm>