Poll: How should we tag mapper-derived/inferred `source` for `start_date` and `end_date`?

When you’re mapping and you don’t have a definitive source for the start_date or end_date, but you can reasonably assume from a map where related items are or are not present, how should you cite the source?

Poll background & details

When there is no definitive source outside of the mapper’s observation, should the start/end_date:source=* value be:

  • nothing at all
  • A simple "inference" - e.g., start_date:source="inference"
  • A simple word, but not “inference” - please reply with an alternative suggestion below
  • A text explanation - e.g., end_date:source="Item not on 1860 Baist map, but is on 1875 Sanborn map.
  • A text explanation AND an edtf date - e.g., the text explanation tag above and end_date:edtf=1860/1875
0 voters

Is *_date:edtf= still restricted to Level 1? That meaning would be close to something closing down or being demolished gradually from 1860 to 1875. Needs to be [1860..1875] in Level 2.
Arguably the *_date:source= should be the 1860 and 1875 maps. How they are interpreted is another thing. *_date:description= will work too.

1 Like

At least according to the parsers I’ve tried, this level 2 syntax doesn’t allow for the beginning and end of a .. to have different precision. For example, you can’t say [1860..1875-05], even if you’re sure it couldn’t be any later than May 1875.

1 Like