On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +0000, Devonshire wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote: > > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote: > > The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always > seemed like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people > re-aligning things based on a bad phone GPS or badly aligned aerial imagery > is impossible and even realising that things have been incorrectly moved is > random at best.
I agree entirely and have often wished for exactly that. I sometimes use source=gps_surveys (plural) to try to convey that this is not just one random gps trace. In this case, I just had source=gps_survey. I too regret the awful smartphone (and satnav) gps traces which suggest all gps is rubbish. I try not to upload any gps which is not reasonably accurate. And add a note if the gps quality is poor when it still has value, perhaps because there are no other traces in the area. I suppose that we ought to start a discussion on the tagging list to suggest source:accuracy = low|medium|high|differential or some such. ael _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
