Proposal talk:Bad source

Note

This seems better served by a box around the bad data with a note=* describing what is out of date and why (i.e., note=Yahoo Aerial out of date, recent construction, no need for a limited new tag (limited in the sense of only including a singular word representing the source) --sargas 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. People simply don't look at the tags on boxes, I know this from experience. This would be a far more effective solution. Daveemtb 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We could still encourage people to add a a note as well. --Wynndale 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to tie the out-of-date definition to the imagery date or content so that the definition automatically goes away when the next generation Yahoo imagery comes out? MikeN 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This would be useful, I agree, but might be difficult. I think it would still be more beneficial to implement this proposal even without this feature, than not at all. Daveemtb 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it would be good to proceed even without automated image update detection. In most cases, the areas are identified by active mappers who will know to remove their area highlighting when imagery is updated.

I am worried that this approach marks a whole area as bad for a particular data source, when in fact it the data source map be valid for some uses and not others. e.g. Buildings get knocked down and rebuilt but roads remain the same. The person tracing might be interested in streams or some other virtually permanent feature that would just cause a tracer to delete a bad data area to work around this restriction. I support the notes for a polygon. If people don't read the notes, we should focus on encouraging them being read rather than disabling the tracing. --TimSC 21:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One possibility could be for editors to show the image underneath as an option. Users who are naive or in a hurry would stick to the default and anyone who did this would have made a conscious decision and be cautious. --Wynndale 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• If we have ground-truthed an area and determined that certain features are out of date, why not delete them? There is generally something to replace it with, new buildings interpolated in, marking an area as construction, new road layouts, etc. I am not really sure of the need for this tag? MikeCollinson 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • +1 : this sounds as a revival of the tag "FIXME" which means "I see something wrong but I have no time or am too lazy to correct it immediately". If you see something wrong, just fix it. -- Pieren 09:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I second Pieren's sentiments. --Hawke 18:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The tag is for cases where OpenStreetMap is correct but other sources such as Yahoo imagery are not. --Wynndale 11:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If that's the case, why do we need to tag it at all? Jonathan Bennett 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Because users who are editing over an aerial photography layer sometimes see a roundabout or something similar on the background that is missing on the map and don’t realise that the difference is because the pictures are out of date, not because the map is unfinished. The problematic part of the photography would be omitted where the tag is present. --Wynndale 12:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
        • "The problematic part of the photography would be omitted" -- I'd suggest you code up a way of doing this, test it and have it working before proposing this tag, otherwise it's useless. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but the best way of dealing with enthusiastic but clueless contributors is to educate, not legislate. Jonathan Bennett 12:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Change of name

I have changed the key names to bad_source=* to make it clearer to editors that this tag marks areas where external data sources are the problem, not OpenStreetMap itself. --Wynndale 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)