Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On 27/09/2009, at 8:06 AM, Jim Croft wrote: Given that OSM is a land-based project, the mean high water mark is probably might be the best to use. The water cover page[0] suggests that you use water=tidal;surface=sand for the area between the high and low water marks (assuming it's a sandy beach). There are quite a few places where those lines can be many kilometres apart :) [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_cover ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Ross Scanlon wrote: Using gpsdrive it's possible to add the SRTM (contour data) yes, I'll try it one day currently still on the navit experiment :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/27 Jim Croft jim.cr...@gmail.com: I had never really thought of this before, but land traveller and mariner have quite different concepts of what it means to reach 'the coast'. For the former it is when you get your feet wet, for the latter it is when you run into something. And there are places where there is quite a gap between the two. Given that OSM is a land-based project, the mean high water mark is probably might be the best to use. Here's the legal definition of coast line: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/bodylodgmentattachments/FA6ED0A063E2DB45CA25711700034C3B?OpenDocument Complete with lat/lon etc. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/28 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au: As well as gps/GPS being missing, it's interesting that Yahoo is missing from the Map Features page. Yahoo could be listed both as a source and an attributation, but everyone else lists it as a source so it's a go with the flow sort of thing. When we get a local entity and if we get sponsorships/funding to do our own imagery we have the right to have it attributed to OSM Australia for example... I guess Yahoo didn't ask for this? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/27 Jim Croft jim.cr...@gmail.com: I had never really thought of this before, but land traveller and mariner have quite different concepts of what it means to reach 'the coast'. For the former it is when you get your feet wet, for the latter it is when you run into something. And there are places where there is quite a gap between the two. There is also a legal definition under maritime law. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
Also I think some bot has removed some of the ABS tags, there seems to be a lot of ways exactly 500 nodes in length, that are missing abs tags... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:02:50 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/26 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: I don't think that the ABS boundaries change if the roads change. It'd be worth investigating, especially if other govt bodies can benefit from it and as a result we end up with more data. It's probably worth while whoever originally contacted the ABS and check with them to see if the road changes and an ABS boundary is along that road does that change the boundary. Was it Franc? It was. Looking back to April when it was first entered, it was suggested that where no/little sat coverage or indeterminate from yahoo, then the ABS data could be used for natural features (rivers, coastline). My thoughts at the time were that rivers would be good but I was dubious about the coastline as I had seen several where the ABS data just cut straight across the mouth of a bay. Whereas the PGS and/or landsat was more accurate. So I'd support using it for rivers but not for coastlines. As for roads until we get some clarification from ABS as to when a road is moved then the boundary moves with it don't use it for roads and don't move the boundary to match the road. Particularly those that have been surveyed and no longer match the ABS boundary closely. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:35:05 +1000 terryc ter...@woa.com.au wrote: Ross Scanlon wrote: We should not just automatically change the coastline to the ABS data without at least looking at the sat imagery as well. What exactly will that tell you? I would expect that you need to find out what data the ABS coastline is based on. From memory, the offical coastline is at mean highwater level. The ABS data is boundary data not coastline data, however there are areas where it will follow the coastline, rivers, etc. Have a look at the link below: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-20.2657lon=148.9852zoom=13layers=B000FTF This is Whitsunday Island. If you then go to edit and turn on the Yahoo imagery as the background you will see that the area on the western side the ABS boundary cuts straight across a bay whereas the coastline follows arround the bay. Like wise on the eastern side the ABS boundary follows the water up the inlet and the coastline follows the navigable part of the inlet. As I said there are areas where you need to look first if you are going to change the coastline to the ABS boundary. Also have a look at Repulse Creek area which is SW of this on the mainland, the ABS boundary in no way reflects the coastline or the creekline. On the east coast, probably means little difference, but NW coast might mean a great positional difference, i.e Sat images also require knowledge of the state of the tide when they were taken. Anywhere in the tropics has the posibility of a great positional difference. The northwest coast is not the only place that has 9m tides. Have a look at Mackay's eastern beaches where the difference between the low tide waterline and the high tide waterline can be about 1k due to the shallow slope of the bottom there. Practically, what is the coastline used for? Aside from defining the outline of Australia, anything you want to. I know someone who is using it in a gps program along side their nautical charts, not for navigation purely as an educational exercise. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
Ross Scanlon wrote:
We should not just automatically change the coastline to the ABS data without
at least looking at the sat imagery as well.
What exactly will that tell you?
I would expect that you need to find out what data the ABS coastline is
based on. From memory, the offical coastline is at mean highwater level.
On the east coast, probably means little difference, but NW coast might
mean a great positional difference, i.e Sat images also require
knowledge of the state of the tide when they were taken.
Practically, what is the coastline used for?
--
Terry Collins {:-)}
Bicycles, Appropriate Technology, Natural Environment, Welding
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
I had never really thought of this before, but land traveller and
mariner have quite different concepts of what it means to reach 'the
coast'. For the former it is when you get your feet wet, for the
latter it is when you run into something. And there are places where
there is quite a gap between the two.
Given that OSM is a land-based project, the mean high water mark is
probably might be the best to use.
jim
Practically, what is the coastline used for?
Aside from defining the outline of Australia, anything you want to. I know
someone who is using it in a gps program along side their nautical charts,
not for navigation purely as an educational exercise.
Cheers
Ross
--
_
Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:24:49 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could do their roads or what not. I've added them back in as it's only fair to attribute the ABS for their data but has anyone else noticed this at all, or even removed the tags, accidental or otherwise? Another good reason not to combine roads with the ABS boundaries. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/25 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:24:49 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could do their roads or what not. I've added them back in as it's only fair to attribute the ABS for their data but has anyone else noticed this at all, or even removed the tags, accidental or otherwise? Another good reason not to combine roads with the ABS boundaries. Unfortunately they are the best data sources in some cases, especially rivers in rural areas, people shouldn't remove the tags though, I've added them back in where I suspect they should be. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:58:14 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/25 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:24:49 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could do their roads or what not. I've added them back in as it's only fair to attribute the ABS for their data but has anyone else noticed this at all, or even removed the tags, accidental or otherwise? Another good reason not to combine roads with the ABS boundaries. Unfortunately they are the best data sources in some cases, especially rivers in rural areas, people shouldn't remove the tags though, I've added them back in where I suspect they should be. Rivers especially in remote areas I agree with as they don't tend to be moved over time. Roads, well one I just added had several new sections that are no longer where the old road and ABS boundary are. Easiest way to fix it was just delete the highway and name tags from the ABS boundary and start again. Ensuring the ABS source tag and boundary was still in place. There is no guarantee that the ABS boundary still runs along any road. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/25 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: There is no guarantee that the ABS boundary still runs along any road. I wonder if there would be benefit in moving the ABS boundary to match, ideally we'd love for the ABS to use us for data in and out, not just in ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/26 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: I don't think that the ABS boundaries change if the roads change. It'd be worth investigating, especially if other govt bodies can benefit from it and as a result we end up with more data. It's probably worth while whoever originally contacted the ABS and check with them to see if the road changes and an ABS boundary is along that road does that change the boundary. Was it Franc? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
Hi all I'm still a relative newcomer to OSM (and am still in wonder at the complexity and enormity of the task!) and have found this discussion quite interesting. I only use Potlatch as I was advised it was simple, and for beginners, and it loaded by default in the edit screen. I use an Oregon300 GPS. I started only using the tag source=survey until Potltach added the GPS tag. I thought that the Wiki had simply not been updated but that some official (so to speak) decision had been made to encourage the use of the tag source=GPS. I then went back to my traces and changed the source to GPS to keep up with the default application. From what I've read I now will go back to source=survey and add the tag survey=gps. I will consider further the advantages of further definition to GPS type (I think that could well end up in a Commodore/Falcon and Landcruiser/Patrol debate). I do want to say though that I do appreciate the attention you guys give to such matters. When I am confident enough to comment beyond a newbie I hope to add constuctively to some of the serious stuff. Dan From: Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 24 September, 2009 2:07:49 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag If source=GPS (or source=gps) is unallowable, then why is it a preset in Potlatch? No idea, whoever wrote the presets for potlatch probably thinks it's a good idea but did not read the wiki. I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags - as long as I know what the guidelines actually are! Then RTFW, it's on the map features page and source=survey is a core recommended feature set and corresponding tag and states: source | survey | gpx track or other physical survey If you feel that it needs to be amplified that the survey is from gps then add survey=gps or note=survey by gps, this is the intent of the add your own tags. But most would understand that it's from a gps survey rather than using theodolite/compass and chain/etc -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au __ Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Dan O#39;Hara detect...@yahoo.com.au: GPS. I started only using the tag source=survey until Potltach added the GPS tag. I thought that the Wiki had simply not been updated but that some I've mailed the main talk list over this, no doubt it'll end up in a pointless debate, either the wiki will be updated to reflect this or more likely potlatch devs will be prompted to do the right thing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
I'm still a relative newcomer to OSM (and am still in wonder at the complexity and enormity of the task!) and have found this discussion quite interesting. I only use Potlatch as I was advised it was simple, and for beginners, and it loaded by default in the edit screen. I use an Oregon300 GPS. I started only using the tag source=survey until Potltach added the GPS tag. I thought that the Wiki had simply not been updated but that some official (so to speak) decision had been made to encourage the use of the tag source=GPS. I then went back to my traces and changed the source to GPS to keep up with the default application. Potlatch is good for simple edits, josm is much better in the long run. Have a look at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_editors as you can see there a few to chose from. From what I've read I now will go back to source=survey and add the tag survey=gps. I will consider further the advantages of further definition to GPS type (I think that could well end up in a Commodore/Falcon and Landcruiser/Patrol debate). Good idea of John's wasn't it. Yes gps type could easily end up like that and I don't see any great advantage, unless you have dgps or the like. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Dan O#39;Hara detect...@yahoo.com.au: From what I've read I now will go back to source=survey and add the tag survey=gps. I will consider further the advantages of further definition to GPS type (I think that could well end up in a Commodore/Falcon and Landcruiser/Patrol debate). Not really, cars have had over 120 years to get to this point in time, electronics is much less mature and there is significant differences between the GPS chipset in iPhones which does poorly compared to some other phones, then you have various dedicated GPS devices some of which would be more accurate than others, and you have current technology verses older technology all of which can decrease acuracy compared to other devices. I've played with 3 different phones with GPS some were better than others, and if they had 3G coverage/capability they were more accurate again. I've also played with a couple of GPS loggers, one of which is more accurate than the phones, the other is much worst. Then you get into DGPS like Ross suggested, you also have devices that can mostly lock onto the secondary GPS frequency which gives the device more certainty by being able to work out the atmospheric conditions better. You also have the farming GPS stuff which is good down to the 4cm or sub-cm accuracy levels. It's all about how much money you have to burn but there is significant differences between technologies for various reasons. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, John Smith wrote: You're blowing smoke, it's obvious source=gps is the same thing as source=survey, however source=survey is a core set of features and already in wide spread and common usage. If you think in the Venn diagram source=survey is a big box source=gps is a subset of that box and then some other subsets of gps would be needed just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if it is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip and then how will I define the survey= ?? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Liz ed...@billiau.net: If you think in the Venn diagram source=survey is a big box source=gps is a subset of that box and then some other subsets of gps would be needed GPS on it's own isn't more meaningful either, not without knowing the hardware used, since most surveys will be using consumer grade GPS anyway. and then how will I define the survey= source=survey survey=observation ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On 24/09/2009, at 2:07 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags - as long as I know what the guidelines actually are! Then RTFW There's no need to be rude. The obvious place to look at the wiki is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source - however on this page even source=survey is missing. Yes, is it on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features but it's not exactly the most obvious place to look. Anyway, I originally made the post because someone had made the change from gps to source at around the time that we were discussing which tag to use on this list. I wasn't expecting the talk to degenerate. As long as a consensus is reached I am happy to go with it. Mark P. --- They offered to transport me back to any point in history that I would care to go, and so I had them send me back to last Thursday night, so I could pay my phone bill on time. (Weird Al Yankovic, Everything You Know Is Wrong) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au: on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features but it's not exactly the most obvious place to look. That should be the first place to look, not the last. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:11:30 +1000 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: On 24/09/2009, at 2:07 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags - as long as I know what the guidelines actually are! Then RTFW There's no need to be rude. Read the full wiki. The obvious place to look at the wiki is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source - however on this page even source=survey is missing. Yes, is it on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features but it's not exactly the most obvious place to look. The Map_Features is the first place you should be looking not the last. All other pages are just additional to that. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: The obvious place to look at the wiki is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source - however on this page even source=survey is missing. I'm with Mark - this should be cleaned up, preferably by someone who has a clearer understanding of the consensus than I. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: ideas for subsets gps_chip=antaris/sirfstar3/mediatek/trimble/ gps_model= hdop= pdop= (precision would be some rough figure for the track, i wouldn't want to see them on each single node) May I suggest adding source:*=* to the front of these (and other) keys to make it absolutely clear they refer to the source and not to the tagged element? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: ideas for subsets gps_chip=antaris/sirfstar3/mediatek/trimble/ gps_model= hdop= pdop= (precision would be some rough figure for the track, i wouldn't want to see them on each single node) May I suggest adding source:*=* to the front of these (and other) keys to make it absolutely clear they refer to the source and not to the tagged element? Roy i'm not really suggesting tag forms but a logical set of the tags so if we made up a wiki page on how to be obsessional with tagging the source of data we would need to set the tags out in a reasonable way as you noted -- BOFH excuse #404: Sysadmin accidentally destroyed pager with a large hammer. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if it is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip and then how will I define the survey= source=survey survey=observation I don't think survey=observation means anything. source=survey always implies survey=observation - that is, if you visit someplace and don't make any *observations*, you aren't doing mapping. The source of an element, I think, comes from two places: source of lat/long (e.g. the location of the road) - how about source:location=* - and source of tag values (e.g. the name of the road) - already defined as source:key=*. It may be useful to tag these separately. For the walking-papers example, for each new shop node where shop=* and name=* is entered, presumably you would have source:location=walking-papers; source:name=survey; source:shop=survey. This implies that you used the walking-papers only to decide where to locate the new shop nodes. If you used a GPS and added a waymark on the ground, or used photo- or audio-mapping synchronised to a gpx track, you would instead use source:location=survey; survey=gps, etc. If you named the shop from memory, rather than on-the-ground survey, you'd use source:name=knowledge. If you added a shop node *in a particular location* from memory (e.g. you remember it's on this particular corner), you'd use source:location=knowledge. Another example: If going out with a GPS and filling in noname roads, where the locations are already traced from, say yahoo, I think you would only need to add source:name=survey. In this instance I don't think your GPS has anything to do with adding name=* to pre-mapped noname roads. And so on and so forth. That was a bit long winded. In short, to be thorough, use source:location=* and source:key=*. As long as location is never used as a key name (I can't see why it would be), it'll work :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Roy i'm not really suggesting tag forms but a logical set of the tags so if we made up a wiki page on how to be obsessional with tagging the source of data we would need to set the tags out in a reasonable way as you noted Liz, I know - I wasn't trying to be critical, just adding my thoughts :) we might make up a wiki page on the variations of survey, deliberately never put it to vote, because that is a useless process and then we could say that survey with no further definition *is* gps and keep pointing people in that direction -- BOFH excuse #353: Second-system effect. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if it is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip and then how will I define the survey= source=survey survey=observation I don't think survey=observation means anything. source=survey always implies survey=observation - that is, if you visit someplace and don't make any *observations*, you aren't doing mapping. The source of an element, I think, comes from two places: source of lat/long (e.g. the location of the road) - how about source:location=* - and source of tag values (e.g. the name of the road) - already defined as source:key=*. It may be useful to tag these separately. For the walking-papers example, for each new shop node where shop=* and name=* is entered, presumably you would have source:location=walking-papers; source:name=survey; source:shop=survey. This implies that you used the walking-papers only to decide where to locate the new shop nodes. If you used a GPS and added a waymark on the ground, or used photo- or audio-mapping synchronised to a gpx track, you would instead use source:location=survey; survey=gps, etc. If you named the shop from memory, rather than on-the-ground survey, you'd use source:name=knowledge. If you added a shop node *in a particular location* from memory (e.g. you remember it's on this particular corner), you'd use source:location=knowledge. Another example: If going out with a GPS and filling in noname roads, where the locations are already traced from, say yahoo, I think you would only need to add source:name=survey. In this instance I don't think your GPS has anything to do with adding name=* to pre-mapped noname roads. And so on and so forth. That was a bit long winded. In short, to be thorough, use source:location=* and source:key=*. As long as location is never used as a key name (I can't see why it would be), it'll work :) Sorry for additional email - Alternatively, use source=* ONLY with regards to lat/long, and source:key=*. Unfortunately, in that case some would probably persist with source=survey when adding name=* to noname roads... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
Something else worth noting, as I've been doing postcode boundaries I've noticed some people have wiped some of the ABS tags so they could do their roads or what not. I've added them back in as it's only fair to attribute the ABS for their data but has anyone else noticed this at all, or even removed the tags, accidental or otherwise? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au: In light of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should decide on which tag to use prior to making extensive changes like these, especially as there is so far no agreement on what source=survey actually means, whereas source=GPS is pretty obvious. source=GPS is no more informative than source=survey. How old is the GPS device? How accurate is it? When was it last calibrated? What is the HDOP of each point plotted? If you want, add survey=GPS, but source=survey seems to have been used since the beginning of the project and so it has consistently been used in this manner. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: In light of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should decide on which tag to use prior to making extensive changes like these, I agree. IMHO extensive, (semi-)automated changes should be limited *at least* to tags that have been clearly made in error (e.g. spelling mistakes) and never to tags that could be reasonably expected to have been intended by the original author to have a different meaning. Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these should have been left alone. A similar thing happened to me when a shop I tagged as shop=photography (I meant, they *take* photos, etc.) was changed to shop=photo (which I would have taken to mean, they *develop* photos, etc.): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/488744910/history especially as there is so far no agreement on what source=survey actually means, whereas source=GPS is pretty obvious. The debate re: source=survey vs. source=GPS is a separate issue, and I have no comment on it right now. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these should have been left alone. source=survey is in the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation and it's quite specific source | survey | gpx track or other physical survey ie you went and physically surveyed the area source=gps/GPS/GPS trace is not there at all and should not be used. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these should have been left alone. source=survey is in the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation and it's quite specific source | survey | gpx track or other physical survey ie you went and physically surveyed the area source=gps/GPS/GPS trace is not there at all and should not be used. If source=gps is indeed unallowable, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source should be cleaned up, and the User Defined values section should be removed. I would still suggest to err on the side of caution when doing (semi)-automatic tag changes, beyond perhaps obvious spelling mistakes. This is a general suggestion, relevant also to the shop=photo vs shop=photography example I gave. If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using any tags you like, I think he should be free to do so. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using any tags you like, I think he should be free to do so. Are you intentionally trying to be a troll? Yes you can use any tag you like, however consistency is of equal if not higher importance, the point of using any tag you like is for things that may not be in common usage, for example you may have aerial imagery, this isn't a survey but you should always source where data came from. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
Quoting Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: source=survey is in the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation source=gps/GPS/GPS trace is not there at all and should not be used. If source=gps is indeed unallowable, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source should be cleaned up, and the User Defined values section should be removed. If source=GPS (or source=gps) is unallowable, then why is it a preset in Potlatch? If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using any tags you like, I think he should be free to do so. I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags - as long as I know what the guidelines actually are! Mark P. --- They offered to transport me back to any point in history that I would care to go, and so I had them send me back to last Thursday night, so I could pay my phone bill on time. (Weird Al Yankovic, Everything You Know Is Wrong) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
I wonder if this same silly debate will come up when Galileo receivers come out, then you have people using GLONASS receivers, and IRNSS receivers and the chinese system. Also it says I can use any tag I like on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway I think I might start doing my own highway tags since anything goes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:23:01 +1000 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using any tags you like, I think he should be free to do so. Yes, use any tags you like except where there is already one to cover the situation. RTFW (read the full wiki) first paragraph of the Map_Features page says: This page contains a core recommended feature set and corresponding tags. Consistency is more important than if he feels like it conveys a different meaning. Did Mark go to these locations note what was there and therefore survey what he put in osm, it appears he did. Therefore it is source=survey. A physical survey. If he want's to amplify what was entered then maybe survey=gps is the way to go or note=this survey was done by gps -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/24 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using any tags you like, I think he should be free to do so. Are you intentionally trying to be a troll? Yes you can use any tag you like, however consistency is of equal if not higher importance, the point of using any tag you like is for things that may not be in common usage, for example you may have aerial imagery, this isn't a survey but you should always source where data came from. Let me clarify. I think consistency is great. I'm just questioning the method. Good method: Discussion, voting, observing tagwatch, making recommendations, finding consensus, wiki documentation Bad method: Doing (semi)-automated changes of other people's contributions, which can often be *damaging* (in the eyes of the author, at least) I acknowledge that a change from source=gps to source=survey is not the end of the world. I am talking about the general principle. When in doubt, don't change it (lest we lose information), until the situation becomes clearer. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
If source=GPS (or source=gps) is unallowable, then why is it a preset in Potlatch? No idea, whoever wrote the presets for potlatch probably thinks it's a good idea but did not read the wiki. I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines, rather than making up tags - as long as I know what the guidelines actually are! Then RTFW, it's on the map features page and source=survey is a core recommended feature set and corresponding tag and states: source | survey | gpx track or other physical survey If you feel that it needs to be amplified that the survey is from gps then add survey=gps or note=survey by gps, this is the intent of the add your own tags. But most would understand that it's from a gps survey rather than using theodolite/compass and chain/etc -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Good method: Discussion, voting, observing tagwatch, making So it's good that discussions end up going round in circles with no clear outcome? Bad method: Doing (semi)-automated changes of other people's contributions, which can often be *damaging* (in the eyes of the author, at least) This is a strawman argument. The basis of OSM is that anyone can edit anything for any reason, as long as it's not infringing someone else's copyright and isn't malicious. Furthermore there is a lot of bots doing a number of various different things, obviously they haven't been banned so their edits must not be undesirable. If people had followed the recommendations of the map features page in the first place this wouldn't even be an issue. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
In general, the two are inseparable. If author A says M and means X, and author B says N and means Y, then changing N to M *does not lead to consistency*. (note: in this example, M=source=survey, N=source=gps, B=Mark). Except where M is already clearly defined as a constant, as in: source | survey | gpx trace or other physical survey Furthermore, if N means Y=X AND X2 (which is the case in this particular example, but certainly not always), then you've lost information (X2), which can only be regained by re-surveying. Otherwise, even worse, you could have damaged the data by misinterpreting N as meaning X. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: In general, the two are inseparable. If author A says M and means X, and author B says N and means Y, then changing N to M *does not lead to consistency*. (note: in this example, M=source=survey, N=source=gps, B=Mark). Except where M is already clearly defined as a constant, as in: source | survey | gpx trace or other physical survey No, it makes no difference. Changing N to M, regardless of what N and M are, does not make Y mean X. In fact, if M is clearly defined, B is more likely to have been aware of its meaning - the fact that B then still chose to say N means Y is even *less* likely to mean X. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
2009/9/24 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: These were some of my original entries (2007) along with gpsdrivetrack, hopefully I've changed them all to source=survey now. I was just curious if they were still being tagged that way or not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] More on the survey tag
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:35:20 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/24 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: These were some of my original entries (2007) along with gpsdrivetrack, hopefully I've changed them all to source=survey now. I was just curious if they were still being tagged that way or not. Shoudn't be any more as I tag all mine now as source=survey. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
