Jerry, I'm thinking that we should adopt OGC-style separation of feature and geometry, but that would break a lot of the OSM tools that people have come to love. If we are going to do that, we should get enough grant money to pay a few devs to fix tools as we break them. -rhw
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 4:12 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:33:30 +0000 > From: SK53 <[email protected]> > To: Albin Larsson <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OHM] Linked Data > Message-ID: > <CAELijW-Nxxw4r0AxGBd=s4vl6prhtyhqdcaxxnony2llblp...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Very interesting indeed, and I think your ideas really highlight aspects of > the likely depth of tagging we are likely to end up with in a richly > developed area of OHM. > > It also convinces me that there is mileage in my idea of splitting out > metatags from tags describing the object itself. > > Jerry > > On 27 March 2015 at 12:57, Albin Larsson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My thoughts on linked data in OpenHistoricalMap and how I do it: >> >> >> http://abbe98.github.io/blog/2015/03/26/mapping-the-past-with-linked-data-in-openhistoricalmap/ >> >> Feedback, ideas, thoughts? >> >> // >> Albin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Historic mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >> >> > -------------- next p _______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
