|
Sometimes I'll encounter things with tagging indicating its government, project, survey, or other concrete source. If the object itself it is now wrong, should the tagging just be ignored and object fixed? Are there any tags or info should add to indicate it has been moved or otherwise updated? Examples:
|
|
If you keep an object but alter its shape or properties according to aerial imagery, and the object has source tags, then remove the source tags as they would now be misleading. If necessary, the object history can be retrieved to find out exactly what has been added from what source. If the object has a concrete ID that links it to a data source it was imported from (something like xyzcounty_building_ref=1234) it might make sense to check with whoever ran the import; it is possible that they are still running some sort of update process and while that should never overwrite something in OSM, always better to double check, and discuss whether keeping or removing the ID is best. As for TIGER, I'd say if you have verified that the data is correct (or modified it to be correct) you should remove the tiger_reviewed=no; other than that, I'd suggest to ask on the talk-us mailing list for general practice with TIGER stuff. Thank you very much for your answer. Very helpful.
(08 Jul '21, 13:15)
Joel D Reid
|
As for my own question, "is there more info about handling tiger," there is this Key:tiger:reviewed wiki article, which notably includes, “
Some mappers object to the tag since it implies a process of review and "moderation" of edits, which does not exist.” See also: the TIGER fixup article.