Hi everyone
Recently I realized that the chronology https://taginfo.osm.ch/keys/source#chronology tab for `source` showed a stark incline. Upon further inspection I figured this is mostly due to source=maxar https://taginfo.osm.ch/tags/source=maxar#chronology and source=swisstopo SWISSIMAGE https://taginfo.osm.ch/tags/source=swisstopo%20SWISSIMAGE#chronology.
I thought that tagging like that is discouraged. Is it not? What do you think: should users be asked to stop doing this and if so, how? I don't want to offend anyone.
Greetings j.
P.S. I realize that this is a bit nitpicky. It is, however, a pet peeve of mine.
Hi j
On 17.11.21 14:29, jwitp@tutanota.com wrote:
Recently I realized that the chronology https://taginfo.osm.ch/keys/source#chronology tab for `source` showed a stark incline. Upon further inspection I figured this is mostly due to source=maxar https://taginfo.osm.ch/tags/source=maxar#chronology and source=swisstopo SWISSIMAGE https://taginfo.osm.ch/tags/source=swisstopo%20SWISSIMAGE#chronology.
Recently? Or do you mean the steeper-than-average incline from ~end 2008 to ~2016 / 2017?
I thought that tagging like that is discouraged. Is it not?
It is. Source should be tagged on the changeset, not on the object.
What do you think: should users be asked to stop doing this
If some still do this, IMHO yes.
and if so, how? I don't want to offend anyone.
How? Politely, and not only stating the rule / recommendation, but also its reason(s). Some will still be offended, but that's as hard to foresee as it is to avoid.
Try to not let yourself be pulled into nasty arguments and stay polite even if others don't.
The goal is not to convince everyone, but to inform those who'd willingly follow such a recommendation (at least if they understand its purpose) but simply didn't know or think about it, yet, or forgot to apply it.
P.S. I realize that this is a bit nitpicky. It is, however, a pet peeve of mine.
That's quite alright. It's a pet peeve of many other experienced mappers here, too, AFAIK. ;-)
Kind regards, Raphael (das-g)
It is clearly not pest practice.
And if anybody doesn't believe, just point then to the 100'000s of objects that have source=bing or similar tagged on them which have been changed multiple times based on other sources and still maintain the, now, bogus tag.
Simon
PS: any yes I originally did that too, but it's a long time ago.
Am 17.11.2021 um 14:29 schrieb jwitp@tutanota.com:
Hi everyone
Recently I realized that the chronology https://taginfo.osm.ch/keys/source#chronology tab for `source` showed a stark incline. Upon further inspection I figured this is mostly due to source=maxar https://taginfo.osm.ch/tags/source=maxar#chronology and source=swisstopo SWISSIMAGE https://taginfo.osm.ch/tags/source=swisstopo%20SWISSIMAGE#chronology.
I thought that tagging like that is discouraged. Is it not? What do you think: should users be asked to stop doing this and if so, how? I don't want to offend anyone.
Greetings j.
P.S. I realize that this is a bit nitpicky. It is, however, a pet peeve of mine.
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Ciao a tutti
Am 17.11.2021 14:29, schrieb jwitp@tutanota.com:
Upon further inspection I figured this is mostly due to source=maxar [2] and source=swisstopo SWISSIMAGE [3].
Slightly related, but this morning I was bypassing some waiting time with some Maproulette [1] fiddling. I stumbled over a *lot* of `source=maxar` tags during this. It seems to me that the culprit is (a range of versions of) RapiD [2] which was used for a bunch of changes in Switzerland [3] by nitram1234 and rbuffat.
E schöne Nami, habi
[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113936990 [2]: https://mapwith.ai/rapid [3]: https://osm.li/TGL
-
David Haberthür -
jwitp＠tutanota.com -
Raphael Das Gupta (das-g) -
Simon Poole