> I think it would help with community acceptance of a potentially large > number of meta tags if you're somewhat frugal when it comes to adding > new ones. [...] > > In practice, this could mean ... > > * ... not adding key:check_date when the key is first added, or when the > value is changed as opposed to confirmed. (But update check_date tags > that already exist on the object, of course.) > * ... only using check_date where regular re-survey is plausible and > useful. This ties in with your observations on re-check intervals. For > example, there should be an opening_hours:check_date, but probably no > building:levels:check_date. I think the same. Basically, I only brought this up as a question directed at the mailing list at all because in the linked github issue [1] someone argued for always adding a check_date.
He makes some good points [1], also regarding the reliability of the "timestamp" (last date changed) attribute of an element. But so far, the voices here on the mailing list were mostly arguing for frugal use of such meta-tags, so if no other voices that make a conclusive point for being less frugal with such meta tags come up, I will take the measures that you mentioned. [1] https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1836 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
