On 19/9/20 3:58 pm, Warin wrote: > On 17/9/20 11:40 am, Andrew Davidson wrote: >> On 15/9/20 10:53 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: >>> >>> 1. psma:loc_pid. Where this is a stable ID that is used as a >>> reference, the existing ref tag is better for this. If we want to be >>> more specific then ref:psma or something like that would work. No >>> need to invent new tags here when one already exists, is well >>> documented and in widespread use. >>> >> >> I have been pondering this further and I'm wondering if these type of >> maintenance tags would be more appropriate in the note namespace. So: >> >> note:*=* >> >> rather than >> >> ref:*=* >> >> as note=* is for information for other mappers. >> >> Any thoughts/objections/counter proposals? > > > notes tend to be alerts for caution? > > What about using comment:*=* as these tend to be informative, perhaps > too casual? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Hi all, adding my 2cts. I'm for using ref= or ref:xxx= as these would be references. Referencing or relating to the PSMA data set. I don't see comment as suitable when there is a reference tag for ....referencing identifiers. With regards to upload first and then clean up later. I am against it. If preparing a change locally and merging it into the existing map prior to uploading is too complicated now, who is going to see through what needs to be done later? I am an advocate of doing it right first time and therefore I suggest to review if by going slower this can be achieved. e.g. break the task up into smaller bit but do them right using task manager. If consistency is required a wiki or local note file has helped me in the past to be consistent over a lengthy time. Cheers, Seb _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au