[Talk-us] Changing Data Attribution

[Zeke Farwell]

Very nice.  I did not know about that convention.  Will use in the future
for sure.

Zeke


On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Toby Murray <toby.murray at gmail.com> wrote:

> According to the Key:source page on the wiki, an object can have
> multiple source tags. So if you go out and survey a TIGER road and
> discover that the name is incorrect you could change the name and add
> a "source:name=survey" tag. I guess this allows you to distinguish the
> source of specific elements of an object.
>
> According to this I guess I should tag all the I-70 exits in western
> Kansas that I recently added ref=<exit number> tags to with
> "source:ref=KDOT" since I used a KDOT map (these are public domain) to
> get the exit numbers.
>
>
> Toby
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The way I see it, any given feature may have many components to it's
> data.
> > With a road you've got the geometry, name, classification, surface, etc….
> .
> >  These components may all come from one source, or they make come from
> > several.  If the road is unmodified since the TIGER import then the
> source
> > of all these components is TIGER.  If I've taken a GPS trace of the road,
> > noted the name, classification, and surface, then I can make a new way
> (or
> > modify the old one) and tag it "source=GPS" (or source=GPS; survey if you
> > want to get detailed).  The source of the geometry is a GPS and the
> source
> > of the other components is my survey.  Since I've collected all new data
> > from the ground, TIGER is no longer the source of any component.  If
> however
> > I've re-aligned the geometry of a road off Yahoo imagery, I have not
> > verified the other components.   The name, surface, and classification
> are
> > still from TIGER alone so it should be preserved in the source tag
> > (source=Yahoo; TIGER).  Of course if it's a road in my neighborhood that
> I
> > know is called Spruce Ave, and should be tertiary then I'd tag it
> > "source=Yahoo; local_knowledge".  Geometry source from Yahoo, other
> > components from my own knowledge of the area.  Then the next mapper will
> see
> > that someone with knowledge of the area edited that way last and the data
> > can be trusted more than TIGER.  Basically I just think about what the
> > actual source of the data is, and since there are multiple pieces of data
> > about each feature it's perfectly reasonable to have more than one
> source.
> > The attribution tag is a bit different.  It's not about the source of the
> > data, but about giving credit to the person, organization, government,
> etc
> > who made the data available to OSM.  As long as attribution is
> required and
> > the source of any component of a feature is still said organization, then
> > the attribution tag should be preserved.  TIGER data is public domain, so
> no
> > attribution is required.  This is why data from the TIGER import only has
> a
> > source tag.  Source is really for the benefit of the next mapper, so they
> > can gauge if the data they have might be better than what already exists.
> > Zeke
> > Burlington, VT
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Josh Kraayenbrink <jakraay at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This is in relation to Lars' question with attribution on nodes and
> ways.
> >> I have been thinking, possibly incorrectly, about attribution on data.
> The
> >> Tiger import was great, but as you all know, not perfectly accurate. I
> have
> >> been "reviewing" and almost all roads, ways, etc that have been imported
> in
> >> my area are now corrected. The problem comes in the ways we review this
> >> imported data. If I go around and get .gpx traces and use that to move
> the
> >> imported roads and mark the road as reviewed, is it really still to be
> >> attributed to the Tiger import, or does the source/attribution actually
> >> change to my trace? And what about a trace of aerial photography, make a
> >> difference? I do believe attributing the data to Tiger is no longer
> >> accurate, but not one hundred percent
> >> On top of that, do I delete the current data and create a new, more
> >> accurate piece of data in its place, or simply move the Tiger data and
> >> change the attribution. While this makes absolutely no difference to the
> >> current state of the map, it does make a difference for the history of
> the
> >> data. Is my data actually a newer improved version of the Tiger data, or
> is
> >> it a new piece of data?
> >> This does not just apply to Tiger data either. If you map something, but
> I
> >> edit or move it, where does the attribution lie in this? Just something
> I
> >> have been scratching my head on as I have picked up my mapping
> >> and actually getting in the field as of late. Curious on the trains of
> >> thought or consensus on this.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-us mailing list
> >> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100613/3b949d8e/attachment.html>