Re: [Tagging] source tag on object <> changeset

[Eric Gillet]

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:09 AM, marc marc 
wrote:

>  > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:51:16PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>  >> a) good practice to tag source on the changeset.
>  > I always include a fairly comprehensive list
>  > of sources on changesets, but *need* individual source tags
>  > on objects. Otherwise, subsequent mappers come along with
>  > far inferior information and wipe out my many hours/days/years of
>  > careful work on the ground.
> This problem exists for any tag. Where does the localization for a
> crossing come from? Gps / aerial? What is the date of this ?
> I don't imagine that we triple all the tag to have source+date just in
> case someone doesn't read changesets when he thinks that an object needs
> improvement.
> If he doesn't read changesets, will he pay attention to your source tag?
> In my edit, I delete often previous source tag.
> Because if I modify an object after survey, a previous source=bing for
> example on an object no longer say anything usefull.
> I don't add source tag on object for the same reason.
> What would be useful is to have a link beside each tag indicating the
> last changeset that touched it.
> Or maybe a josm plugin can parse the history of the object
>

I recently had the same discussion regarding a Mapillary blog post
,
and completely agree on the points you (Marc) raised.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[John Willis]

> On Jul 22, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Adam Snape  wrote:
> 
> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody adding a 
> name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor would it remove 
> name tags from existing trees. 

Gotcha. I assume the vast majority of mapped trees are unnamed. Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] source tag on object <> changeset

[marc marc]

I create a new thread because it have no link with a tree :-)

Le 22. 07. 17 à 22:20, ael a écrit :
 > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:51:16PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
 >> a) good practice to tag source on the changeset.
 > I always include a fairly comprehensive list
 > of sources on changesets, but *need* individual source tags
 > on objects. Otherwise, subsequent mappers come along with
 > far inferior information and wipe out my many hours/days/years of
 > careful work on the ground.
This problem exists for any tag. Where does the localization for a 
crossing come from? Gps / aerial? What is the date of this ?
I don't imagine that we triple all the tag to have source+date just in 
case someone doesn't read changesets when he thinks that an object needs 
improvement.
If he doesn't read changesets, will he pay attention to your source tag?
In my edit, I delete often previous source tag.
Because if I modify an object after survey, a previous source=bing for 
example on an object no longer say anything usefull.
I don't add source tag on object for the same reason.
What would be useful is to have a link beside each tag indicating the 
last changeset that touched it.
Or maybe a josm plugin can parse the history of the object

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Dave Swarthout]

ael wrote:
"Otherwise, subsequent mappers come along with far
inferior information and wipe out my many hours/days/years of careful
work on the ground ...  bitter experience as above shows that source tags
are *necessary* to indicate: "please don't modify
unless you have better information".

I agree totally.
That is a major reason I persist in my practice; other mappers will know
where my data comes from and would be, I expect, less likely to replace it
unless they have an obviously better source

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> On 22.07.2017 20:51, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> [...] Which in turn implies
>> that if you are using more than one third party data source and it is
>> not clear what you have been deriving from which source, you should be
>> creating separate changesets.
>>
>
> Separating changesets would be a rare case in which there is a very exotic
> source.
>
> Normally you can, in the same changeset, specify in the source tag e.g.
> "ground survey (name); DOP 2016 (geometry)". Even when saying "ground
> survey; DOP 2016" it would be obvious which source is for what.
>
> tom
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 22.07.2017 20:51, Simon Poole wrote:


[...] Which in turn implies
that if you are using more than one third party data source and it is
not clear what you have been deriving from which source, you should be
creating separate changesets.


Separating changesets would be a rare case in which there is a very exotic 
source.

Normally you can, in the same changeset, specify in the source tag e.g. "ground survey (name); DOP 
2016 (geometry)". Even when saying "ground survey; DOP 2016" it would be obvious which source is for 
what.


tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[ael]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:51:16PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22.07.2017 20:28, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Can you expand and clarify your comment for me?
> >
> >
> Just as I wrote, and nothing that I invented, it is considered
> 
> a) good practice to tag source on the changeset. Which in turn implies
> that if you are using more than one third party data source and it is
> not clear what you have been deriving from which source, you should be
> creating separate changesets.
> b) there are some limited exceptions which are typically name spaced
> source keys.

The trouble is that is that it doesn't work. I always include a fairly
comprehensive list of sources on changesets, but *need* individual
source tags on objects. Otherwise, subsequent mappers come along with far
inferior information and wipe out my many hours/days/years of careful
work on the ground.

I used not to use source tags on objects, but bitter experience as above
shows that source tags are *necessary* to indicate: "please don't modify
unless you have better information". It is usually armchair mappers
who tend to run roughshod over existing carefully mapped data, often
using outdated imagery.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Simon Poole]

On 22.07.2017 20:28, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> ...
>
> Can you expand and clarify your comment for me?
>
>
Just as I wrote, and nothing that I invented, it is considered

a) good practice to tag source on the changeset. Which in turn implies
that if you are using more than one third party data source and it is
not clear what you have been deriving from which source, you should be
creating separate changesets.
b) there are some limited exceptions which are typically name spaced
source keys.

As said this has been state of the art since literally years (not quite
a decade since changesets don't exist quite so long).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Dave Swarthout]

 In the Github discussion referred to above, SimonPoole stated:

"Source tags on objects have not been considered good practice for a long
time (with some limited exceptions)."

Simon, I presume your intention is to strengthen the preference for using
source tags on changesets rather than on objects but I would like some
clarification.

I have used source:position and source:name on hundreds of objects I've
tagged. A given object can be located and named using a variety of sources
besides Bing; physical road signs, USGS Topo maps, personal surveys, etc.
I believe it's helpful for mappers who work in the same areas as me to know
where I got names and positions of objects.

Can you expand and clarify your comment for me?

Best regards,

Dave

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

> On 22.07.2017 16:35, Pander wrote:
> > Rarely used tags also take up valuable space in apps such as Vespucci.
> >
> Just to clarify:  optional tags are, as the name says, optional and do
> not use screen real estate except if already in use, or explicitly added
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Simon Poole]

On 22.07.2017 16:35, Pander wrote:
> Rarely used tags also take up valuable space in apps such as Vespucci.
>
Just to clarify:  optional tags are, as the name says, optional and do
not use screen real estate except if already in use, or explicitly added

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Pander]

On 07/22/2017 04:22 PM, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I wasn't arguing in favour of the change, merely addressing John Willis'
> concern. I suppose the intention might be to reduce the likelihood of
> erroneous descriptive name tags such as name=tree. New mappers sometimes
> often fail to realise that name boxes in the editors often should be
> left blank. I suspect that JOSM users are much less likely to make this
> mistake. Then again, I suspect they are also much less likely to be
> deterred from leaving a name because there is no preset name box.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Adam

Rarely used tags also take up valuable space in apps such as Vespucci.

> 
> On 22 July 2017 at 14:24, Shawn K. Quinn  > wrote:
> 
> On 07/22/2017 08:18 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> > On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody
> >> adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor
> >> would it remove name tags from existing trees.
> >
> > But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the preset?
> > if it is not relevant for that particular tree, just leave it blank.
> > Yes it is the minority of trees, but I think there are quite a few trees
> > that have some sort of name. And it is often of historic interest, so
> > worth recording it.
> 
> If I remember right, we have this field on highway=traffic_signals even
> though only one country (Japan) uses it.
> 
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>>
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Adam Snape]

Hi

I wasn't arguing in favour of the change, merely addressing John Willis'
concern. I suppose the intention might be to reduce the likelihood of
erroneous descriptive name tags such as name=tree. New mappers sometimes
often fail to realise that name boxes in the editors often should be left
blank. I suspect that JOSM users are much less likely to make this mistake.
Then again, I suspect they are also much less likely to be deterred from
leaving a name because there is no preset name box.

Regards,

Adam

On 22 July 2017 at 14:24, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

> On 07/22/2017 08:18 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> > On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody
> >> adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor
> >> would it remove name tags from existing trees.
> >
> > But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the preset?
> > if it is not relevant for that particular tree, just leave it blank.
> > Yes it is the minority of trees, but I think there are quite a few trees
> > that have some sort of name. And it is often of historic interest, so
> > worth recording it.
>
> If I remember right, we have this field on highway=traffic_signals even
> though only one country (Japan) uses it.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 07/22/2017 08:18 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody
>> adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor
>> would it remove name tags from existing trees.
> 
> But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the preset?
> if it is not relevant for that particular tree, just leave it blank.
> Yes it is the minority of trees, but I think there are quite a few trees
> that have some sort of name. And it is often of historic interest, so
> worth recording it.

If I remember right, we have this field on highway=traffic_signals even
though only one country (Japan) uses it.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody 
adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor 
would it remove name tags from existing trees.


But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the preset? 
if it is not relevant for that particular tree, just leave it blank.
Yes it is the minority of trees, but I think there are quite a few trees 
that have some sort of name. And it is often of historic interest, so 
worth recording it.


Craig

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody adding a
name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor would it
remove name tags from existing trees.

Regards,

Adam

On 22 July 2017 at 12:47, John Willis  wrote:

>
>
> Javbw
>
> > On Jul 22, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Pander 
> wrote:
> >
> > 5. remove key `name` as it is rare for trees
>
> As a person who has tagged a named tree, please don’t remove it.
>
> A tree was named and planted near my house 300 years ago, and it is a
> local tourist spot.  There is no park, no other kind of infrastructure.
> Just a tree.
>
> Javbw
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Jul 22, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Pander  wrote:
> 
> 5. remove key `name` as it is rare for trees

As a person who has tagged a named tree, please don’t remove it. 

A tree was named and planted near my house 300 years ago, and it is a local 
tourist spot.  There is no park, no other kind of infrastructure. Just a tree. 

Javbw 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Pander]

Hi all,

I would like to proposed some improvements to Beautified JSON presets
for natural=tree.

In short these are:
 1. rename label "Type" to "Leaf Type" for key `leaf_type` to explain
the key better and avoid confusion with key `type` which is no longer
used for trees
 2. rename label "Cycle" to "Leaf Cycle" for key `leaf_cycle` to explain
the key better
 3. add `key circumference` with label "Circumference (m)" to capture
during survey
 4. add key `diameter_crown` with label "Diameter crown (m)" to capture
during survey
 5. remove key `name` as it is rare for trees

Discussion that was the basis for this is found at
https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset/issues/18#issuecomment-317171508
Note that the proposal has already had some evolution. Subsequently,
tree_row could also benefit from a review.

Curious to your views on this.

Best,

Pander

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging