On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Warin wrote: > On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote: > > 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. > > "source=average of multiple gps surveys, high accuracy" > > Be really descriptive... the 's' on the end of gps surveys is really easy to > miss.
Well, yes, and I do quite often expand the source tag to try to convey more. But in your example "high" accuracy is a problem. If I was using differential gps with cm accuracy, I would call that "high" accuracy. In the present case, the accuracy is not really known, but probably approaching a meter. But I guess that sort of thing could be included in a source tag, although free form text might be better in a note tag. But my impression is that many armchair mappers just don't look. ael _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
