Hello,
Here is a tag that I use to allow other contributors or reviewers to check my work, it also allows to indicate the places where an improvement of the geometry is desirable.
Q3: everything that exists or has been until recently, mapped with recent and precise sources.
Q2: the environment has not changed (there are still buildings or a landmark in the immediate vicinity) and I have a quality source such as a photo, a video, a plan or a detailed aerial view.
Q1:
either I have quality sources but the environment has changed too much e.g. the Grand’Place pre-1914 in Namur or the Grognon district in the same city.
or I have one or more sources of average quality such as a general staff map (…)
Q0: no cartographic source or a cartographic source that is too imprecise.
What do you think, could we consider encouraging its use?
Allow me to be ironic with how to assess tag proposal quality
Scope and verifiability: Meta info, and individually-made personal assessment, should be separated from the database. They can already be documented on wiki.
Separate different aspects: You are mixing the quality (including fidelity, detailedness, accuracy, and precision) , and updateness, of sources, with the data completeness
Human-readable, intuitive, descriptive: Avoid using numbers. Use words, that can be easily recognized, understood, and distinguished.
There are already many pages and templates used on wiki
While it should be self-contained and complete, you aren’t really supposed to document and explain everything in the OHM data. You can always use the wiki to describe the whole process.
The *:source:*=* tagging scheme supports more subkeys for characterizing a given source. Some sort of *:source:caveat=* might be appropriate. However, if you anticipate reusing a source multiple times, it might be easier to document your sources on a community project page on the wiki and tag the features with the wiki page title. Here are some examples of pages that some features link to:
Was there a shortcut being used to link to OHM wiki? A shorter dedicated tag should be useful, that can exist alongside other *:source= when needed.
I wonder if the object itself, and the whole project page can be distinguished, as in wikipedia= vs brand:wikipedia= . Eg ohm:wiki= vs ohm:project:wiki= , if there’s a need for other ohm:*= prefixed meta tags, and I want to reserve project:*= for the engineering project of the feature if needed (while ideally, it could have another type= proposed to relate all features affected in it).