> I didn't know that iD doesn't allow you to set the source on the changesets > as somebody mentioned. If that is true, I see this as a shortcoming of iD > that should be fixed.
iD has changeset tag editing since a few weeks (which allows anyone to set the changeset's source tag). It just waits to be rolled out on osm.org with the next minor release of iD. See https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/3898 On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Jochen Topf <joc...@remote.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:41:38AM +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:56:43PM +1000, nwastra wrote: >> > I am unsure what is the preferred way or best practice to tag the source >> > for multipolygons. >> > I currently put the source on the relation with all the rest of the tags, >> > and only adding tags to individual ways or inner polygons if they are also >> > part of a seperate entity like a fence or a body of water. I also include >> > the source with the uploaded change-set. This would seem to be ok when >> > adding a new mp relation. >> > >> > Should the source also be added to all the individual ways that make up >> > the outer and inner boundaries of each polygon? >> > Is this also the preferred way when adding a new large mp relation that >> > does not currently exist? >> > >> > When replacing individual ways or splitting and altering part of a way >> > with updated data, adding the new source tag to those new ways would seem >> > best practice or is it sufficient to added the source to the change-sets >> > alone? >> > >> > Is the most sensible way to initially add the source tags to the relation >> > and change-set upload alone and from then on as individual parts are >> > amended, to add the source to just the updated/corrected ways and the >> > change-set on upload? >> > >> > I have not come across guidance for this on the wki yet. >> >> Putting the sources on the objects has been deprecated for a while. The >> source should be put on the changeset only. If you are doing edits that >> involve several different sources, it is best to split the changes up >> into different changesets. Of course this is not always possible, then >> you can also put several sources in the changeset source tag. >> >> Adding the source to the objects was deprecated, too fined-grained >> source tagging simply doesn't make much sense. We can not track every >> source for every node, way, or relation or the parts of them for every >> tiny change that somebody does. In the end most data will have multiple >> sources and figuring out what came from what can only be done going >> through the changeset tags, not by looking at the tags on the data >> itself. > > I probably shouldn't have used the word "deprecated", because there is > no mechanism in OSM do deprecate anything. This is more "common > practice" really. Martin has already described why source tags on > objects don't work well. In theory they might or might not be a good > idea, but in practice we have seen in OSM that they don't work. The > source tag is just not updated in a way that makes it useful. Since we > introduced changesets, we can do better: We put the actual data into OSM > objects, but the meta-data that describes the why and how of the mapping > we put into the changesets. (I didn't know that iD doesn't allow you to > set the source on the changesets as somebody mentioned. If that is true, > I see this as a shortcoming of iD that should be fixed.) This has the > added benefit of putting the meta-data that is seldomly used on the > changesets keeping the actual OSM objects lean and mean. > > Now regarding the splitting up of changesets for different sources. If > you are doing different things this absolutely makes sense and, I would > argue, is even necessary to be able to add good changeset comments, > which you should always do. So if you come back from a mapping survey > and add the data you collected outside with source "survey" and then go > to a different part of the planet and add a few things from "bing", > those should be two changesets. Of course, if you add the geometry of a > road from Bing and the name from your survey, it makes total sense to > add the source "bing;survey" or something like it. > > As always, there are few hard-and-fast rules in OSM. That's good because > everbody can decide for themselves which arguments they find convincing > and which advice to follow. So if you want to keep adding "source" tags, > that's fine, too. > > Jochen > -- > Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org https://www.jochentopf.com/ +49-351-31778688 > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk