On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 23:13:26 -0400 Rob Warren <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think we don't have choice with the dates tag or else we'll end up > with a monster database filled with unusable anachronisms. Without > going off the handle immediately, I like the idea of the API > validating the data with simple rules: "Must have dates set and/or > must have documentation". > > The nice thing about multiple front-ends / application / clients is > that we'll be able to enforce standardized tags for things a little > easier by having the application do it for the user directly. > > best, > rhw > One issue I have with "documentation" is the field length limits of GIS packages. Maybe the documentation field could be a URL pointing to the actual text. I use the OSM plug-in in QGIS to convert OSM to MapInfo or, to a lesser extent, ESRI files. MapInfo has a maximum field length of 254 characters for a text field, ESRI text fields are 80 characters. MapInfo also has a limited number of fields (its less than 67, not sure how much less. You can still open the file but only for READONLY access. I prefer to use MapInfo because: the editing is much easier than QGIS. versions before v8 can run in Linux under wine. MapInfo uses a feature oriented model whereas ESRI is geometry oriented. E.G. MapInfo can contain points, lines and areas in a single layer where ESRI requires separate layers for each geometric type which I find confusing. mick _______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
