[Talk-ca] Removing source=* when editing

[Lee]

Thank you all, I appreciate the confirmation.

Cheers,

Lee



On 2024-03-23 14:07, Daniel Bégin wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> I do the same as soon as I modify a highway=*.
>
> Daniel
>
> PS: For those interested, you can also ask your questions here :
>
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95
>
> *From:*Nate Wessel <bike756 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 23 March, 2024 11:45
> *To:* talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Removing source=* when editing
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'm sometimes even a little more aggressive, especially when dealing 
> with geobase street imports. The "attribution" field can also safely 
> be dropped, IMO,and so can fields like "geobase:acquisitionTechnique 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:geobase:acquisitionTechnique?uselang=en>" 
> and "statscan:rbuid", especially if the geometry has changed.
>
> I'll sometimes merge segmented streets like this one 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36820145> into one geometry, if all 
> the other meaningful tags are otherwise the same and drop those fields 
> that were created just for the import.
>
> It's all still there in the revision history, but it makes the current 
> data easier to work with.
>
> -Nate
>
> On 2024-03-23 11:27, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
>     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     avoids the problem of outdated source=* tags persisting on objects.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
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Talk-ca mailing list
>
>     Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
> -- 
>
> Nate Wessel
> Cartographer, Planner, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com <https://www.natewessel.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240323/6c28a054/attachment-0001.htm>