On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:40:58PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 30. Jul 2020, at 10:39, ael <witwa...@disroot.org> wrote: > > > > often without survey, and then do not update the source, so > > that tag becomes completely misleading. > > that’s what happens all the time. When I edit things that already have a > source tag (generally source=Bing) I am removing it, as it is not valid any > more. I thought it was established practice that sources belong to edits and > not to objects
Only because, as you say, the source tag is misused. I admit that extending tags is not very widely done, and some people seem to have trouble parsing ";" which I use as a separator. But my tags generally look like source=first;second;... when appropriate. I only delete sections of the source when the original corresponding data has been completely revised. That is quite common in the UK where some origianl rough & ready mapping was done from old maps (NPR, etc). When that has been completely reworked, then the original source=NPR; component can be deleted. > There’s a reason why source tags on objects are discouraged. To make sense of > them you have to dig into the object history anyway. Too many people just > keep/ignore the source tags regardless of their own edits. Surely it is better to educate people who perhaps don't realise how to extend or modify tags? Mind you, I would always want people to check history in any nontrivial cases. Easy in josm: I don't know about other editors. Perhaps we mean "source_history" instead of "source"? ael _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
