[Talk-GB] Update to OSM Analysis

Craig Loftus craigloftus+osm at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 7 13:36:17 GMT 2011

Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
> What I don't see is any way to indicate that the information added could benefit from a ground-survey. NaPTAN imports include the tag NaPTAN:verified=no. Should we not have something similar for data
> taken straight from OS Open data, regardless of whether it is traced or imported by code? Should we used verified=no, surveyed=no, ground_survey=no or what. Without any such tag then people wishing
> to check everything on the ground are really stuck when people helpfully (or unhelpfully depending on your viewpoint) add details from OS Opendata.

Isn't the source tag enough? Once I've surveyed things I change the
source to survey. People looking for survey targets can just look for
source*=OS* ?

Perhaps though, the black cross of verified=no would make people some
people happier. Out of the options you suggest I think verified=no is
preferable as it has some established use with NaPTAN; but I'm not
sure whether we should also prefix it with an import specific
namespace (OSLocator:verified=no)?


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list