On 27/08/2009, at 9:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd say the only thing you know for sure is that the source is unknown
unless it is explicitly tagged. I wouldn't assume anything besides
that. There are people who don't upload their traces (i personally
always do) and who have all rights
2009/8/28 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
If someone doesn't upload their trace _and_ doesn't add a source tag,
then I'll assume that my GPS trace is more accurate than whatever they
used. I think that's fair, because all someone has to do if they have
an accurate way is let other mappers
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com writes:
could we simply extend source=survey with a year
and source=landsat similarly?
source=survey09
source=landsat_trace09
source=yahoo_trace08
That sounds like a good plan.
you can easily get this information by looking at the
2009/8/28 Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi:
Are history data very reliable to be used that way? For example splitting a
way
for some technical reason does not necessarily mean that the whole way was
surveyd again.
As someone else already wrote, this information should be stored in
wynndale at lavabit.com writes:
The new Bad data proposal is a scheme to mark traced aerial photography or
maps as out of date or otherwise unreliable so that they can be obscured
in editors and users dont copy details into the OSM database reducing its
accuracy.
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote:
Instead of calling it Bad data I would say it inaccurate or
outdated data. Map
data traced from Yahoo imagery is better than no data at
all. But some common
schema for tagging the quality of mapped features would be
Hi,
2009/8/26 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com
Anything tagged source=yahoo* or source=landsat should be treated worst
than source=survey and people should source the data properly otherwise
others will assume the data was traced if hi-res imagery is available.
are you sure? What about
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ondrej Novy wrote:
Anything tagged source=yahoo* or source=landsat should be treated worst
than source=survey and people should source the data properly otherwise
others will assume the data was traced if hi-res imagery is available.
are you sure? What about really old
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Ondrej Novy n...@ondrej.org wrote:
are you sure? What about really old survey and newest image
from yahoo? :) It doesn't implied that yahoo is older
then survey!
New sat imagery isn't exactly new, Yahoo recently added hi-res imagery for an
area near here, and the imagery
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
could we simply extend source=survey with a year
and source=landsat similarly?
source=survey09
source=landsat_trace09
source=yahoo_trace08
I'd seperate the information out into 2 key pairs:
source=survey
survey_date=20090826
or
On 26/08/2009, at 7:31 PM, Liz wrote:
we've had a lot of trouble in Au because group X decided that
unmarked was
landsat and they would mark survey, and group Y decided that
unmarked was
survey and they would mark landsat
I take the approach that unmarked is landsat, yahoo, or something
Ondrej Novy wrote:
2009/8/26 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com
Anything tagged source=yahoo* or source=landsat should be treated
worst than source=survey and people should source the data properly
otherwise others will assume the data was traced if hi-res imagery
is
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote:
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
could we simply extend source=survey with a year
and source=landsat similarly?
source=survey09
source=landsat_trace09
source=yahoo_trace08
I'd seperate the information out into 2 key pairs:
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
some places i have been over so many times (like the road
to canberra, the
roads to adelaide, and the road to work) that the actual
date is meaningless,
It's not meaningless, and if it changes just update the survey date.
but
Why tag survey date on every single object? Why not give survey date when
uploading a changeset, and then the 'history' window displayed by most OSM
editors could show it.
That way it won't get out of date if someone else comes along and makes a change
but omits to carefully update 'source' on
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ed Avis wrote:
Why tag survey date on every single object? Why not give survey date when
uploading a changeset, and then the 'history' window displayed by most OSM
editors could show it.
That way it won't get out of date if someone else comes along and makes a
change
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Why tag survey date on every single
object? Why not give survey date when
uploading a changeset, and then the 'history' window
displayed by most OSM
editors could show it.
So until editors update to include that info you could use the
Le mercredi 26 août 2009 à 09:56, John Smith a écrit :
Anything tagged source=yahoo* or source=landsat should be treated worst
than source=survey and people should source the data properly otherwise
others will assume the data was traced if hi-res imagery is available.
What does survey mean?
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote:
What does survey mean?
The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source doesn't
list that
value.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation
___
talk
2009/8/26 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
On 26/08/2009, at 7:31 PM, Liz wrote:
we've had a lot of trouble in Au because group X decided that
unmarked was
landsat and they would mark survey, and group Y decided that
unmarked was
survey and they would mark landsat
I take the approach that
The new Bad data proposal is a scheme to mark traced aerial photography or
maps as out of date or otherwise unreliable so that they can be obscured
in editors and users dont copy details into the OSM database reducing its
accuracy.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bad_data
21 matches
Mail list logo
