[OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing Daylight Map Distribution]

[Yves]

I always put survey+imagery in the last 3 cases. 
Yves 


Le 23 mars 2020 18:43:23 GMT+01:00, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> a écrit :
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset Governance [was: Announcing
>Daylight Map Distribution]
>> From: Frederik Ramm 
>>
>>> Nothing against the idea but what happened to the good old source
>tag
>>> where source=survey would point to mappers on the ground, and
>>> source=XYZ
>>> aerial imagery would point to armchairing?
>
>I'm very sympathetic to knowing the on-ground-ness of a change.  But I
>think it's shades of gray.  This list illustrates what I mean:
>
>* armchair
>
>a place I have never been to, and which is so far away that I am not
>familiar with the customs.  An example would be me (US) editing in
>Africa.
>
>* country-armchair
>
>as above, but I know the country norms.  Me editing in Glacier National
>Park.
>
>* local-armchair
>
>as above, but I know the region norms.   If I edited some town in MA
>that I haven't visited (perhaps because I was going to visit), but I
>generally know how things are.
>
>* visited but mapping done by imagery
>
>Here, I am editing a place where I've been at some point reasonably
>recently and have some clue, but my edits are based on imagery.
>However, my recollection is good enough to avoid most of the armchair
>issues.   An example is me fixing up crosswalks and sidewalks two towns
>away, but not from field mapping notes.   I don't consider this
>armchair, but it's iffy.
>
>* editing soon after a visit
>
>I got someplace, maybe make notes, maybe remember, and edit based on
>some combination of imagery, gpx tracks, notes and memory.   I think
>this is squarely not armchair.
>
>* editing while there
>
>Actually using an editor while being in the place being edited.
>
>
>
>I would basically split this into three armchair and three not
>armchair.
>
>
>
>
>So basically I think source including imagery does not really imply
>"armchairing", in that the use of imagery is not the point, but a lack
>of familiarity with what's on the ground.  I almost always load and
>look
>at imagery when editing after being in the field.  I line up ways from
>imagery when that works, becuase I have come to believe from experience
>(with specific imagery sources) that this is more accurate than my gps
>tracks.
>
>(I have been experimenting with raw GPS data and post-processed PPP
>solutions, and those I think are close to good imagery.)
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200323/5078bcff/attachment.htm>