(Replying to the entire conversation thread)
The way I see it: No data about the objects themselves should be in
changeset description - changeset should only describe the *change*
itself. Because - at least to me, but I do expect to many others as
well - it makes the database structure more clear and intuitive.
Even though source tag is metadata, it's still data about the objects.
I sort of agree that metadata doesn't belong on objects. Or maybe it
should at least have some header differentiating it from actual data
("meta:source"). But having data about objects stored on changesets is
still worse.
Source tag does indeed have described problems of specificity
("bing;survey;knowledge" - which is for which tag) - but these are
mostly edge cases, and a lot of other things in OSM have very similar
problems, and still manage to be very useful in most cases. What needs
to be kept in mind is the *usual* cases where the information is
useful: when I see a feature on OSM that conflicts with what I would
edit there, source tag gives me at least some understanding on which
information is more correct. E.g. when correcting a way to match Bing
imagery or GPS trail, "source=landsat" is a very different case to
"source=survey". Or when changing a name, "source=knowledge" is very
different from no source tag at all.
Disclaimer: Not attempting to force my way of thinking on anyone, just
providing my viewpoint on the subject for the discussion.
On 2 January 2013 14:50, <dies38...@mypacks.net> wrote:
> I have been told ( on the talk-US email list ) that use of {{key|source}} on
> objects has been deprecated for years and that such information is only of
> historical interest and its use should be restricted to changesets.
--
- Ilari Kajaste -
E-Mail: ilari.kaja...@iki.fi
WWW: http://iki.fi/ilari.kajaste
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
