According to the Key:source page on the wiki, an object can have multiple source tags. So if you go out and survey a TIGER road and discover that the name is incorrect you could change the name and add a "source:name=survey" tag. I guess this allows you to distinguish the source of specific elements of an object.
According to this I guess I should tag all the I-70 exits in western Kansas that I recently added ref=<exit number> tags to with "source:ref=KDOT" since I used a KDOT map (these are public domain) to get the exit numbers. Toby On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Zeke Farwell <ezeki...@gmail.com> wrote: > The way I see it, any given feature may have many components to it's data. > With a road you've got the geometry, name, classification, surface, etc…. . > These components may all come from one source, or they make come from > several. If the road is unmodified since the TIGER import then the source > of all these components is TIGER. If I've taken a GPS trace of the road, > noted the name, classification, and surface, then I can make a new way (or > modify the old one) and tag it "source=GPS" (or source=GPS; survey if you > want to get detailed). The source of the geometry is a GPS and the source > of the other components is my survey. Since I've collected all new data > from the ground, TIGER is no longer the source of any component. If however > I've re-aligned the geometry of a road off Yahoo imagery, I have not > verified the other components. The name, surface, and classification are > still from TIGER alone so it should be preserved in the source tag > (source=Yahoo; TIGER). Of course if it's a road in my neighborhood that I > know is called Spruce Ave, and should be tertiary then I'd tag it > "source=Yahoo; local_knowledge". Geometry source from Yahoo, other > components from my own knowledge of the area. Then the next mapper will see > that someone with knowledge of the area edited that way last and the data > can be trusted more than TIGER. Basically I just think about what the > actual source of the data is, and since there are multiple pieces of data > about each feature it's perfectly reasonable to have more than one source. > The attribution tag is a bit different. It's not about the source of the > data, but about giving credit to the person, organization, government, etc > who made the data available to OSM. As long as attribution is required and > the source of any component of a feature is still said organization, then > the attribution tag should be preserved. TIGER data is public domain, so no > attribution is required. This is why data from the TIGER import only has a > source tag. Source is really for the benefit of the next mapper, so they > can gauge if the data they have might be better than what already exists. > Zeke > Burlington, VT > > > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Josh Kraayenbrink <jakr...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> This is in relation to Lars' question with attribution on nodes and ways. >> I have been thinking, possibly incorrectly, about attribution on data. The >> Tiger import was great, but as you all know, not perfectly accurate. I have >> been "reviewing" and almost all roads, ways, etc that have been imported in >> my area are now corrected. The problem comes in the ways we review this >> imported data. If I go around and get .gpx traces and use that to move the >> imported roads and mark the road as reviewed, is it really still to be >> attributed to the Tiger import, or does the source/attribution actually >> change to my trace? And what about a trace of aerial photography, make a >> difference? I do believe attributing the data to Tiger is no longer >> accurate, but not one hundred percent >> On top of that, do I delete the current data and create a new, more >> accurate piece of data in its place, or simply move the Tiger data and >> change the attribution. While this makes absolutely no difference to the >> current state of the map, it does make a difference for the history of the >> data. Is my data actually a newer improved version of the Tiger data, or is >> it a new piece of data? >> This does not just apply to Tiger data either. If you map something, but I >> edit or move it, where does the attribution lie in this? Just something I >> have been scratching my head on as I have picked up my mapping >> and actually getting in the field as of late. Curious on the trains of >> thought or consensus on this. >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
