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

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*

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

> 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

[Tagging] source tag on object <> changeset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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.

[Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

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"