On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Jason Cunningham <jamicu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> From my experience most mapping sessions involve changes and additions made > to a wide variety of objects with a several sources used. Effectively > requiring a new changeset for each object edit makes complicated process > significantly worse. I never said anything about requiring a new changeset for each object edit. What I said was, and I'll reiterate it: 1. source on objects is silly because it fails to capture to the complexity of the editing process, including the multiple sources used for geometry and tags. 2. A better way to capture that information /if you're interested in capturing it at all/ is to use source on the changeset, which is what most mappers do if they use source. I then gave a lot of reasons why that was better. 3. A person on the list complained that source on the changeset doesn't allow for multiple sources. I suggested that they use a semicolon, such as survey;bing or bing;tiger. 4. Then someone said that this method (using a semicolon) would not allow for differentiating which changes came from which source. Notice that at this point, that you're still better off than you would have been with source on the object. You're already at a net gain. But I suggested that /if/ you weren't happy with semicolons, and you wanted to tag not only the sources, but the specifics of the source of each and every change, then you could do so using the changesets, using one changeset per source. Personally, I just use semicolons on the source on the changeset, if I use source at all. - Serge _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
