On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Ross Scanlon <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: > > Consistency is more important than if he feels like it conveys a different > meaning.
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). 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. > 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. Yes - so in this case, I agree, it's no big deal. Y and X are pretty similar. But this may not be the case in general. You have to draw the line somewhere. And I prefer to be conservative, i.e. if in doubt, don't change it until the situation becomes clearer (e.g. after discussion, or additional tags appearing on tagwatch/wiki that make specification easier). > 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" Agreed. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
