Sam removed that context, then spun this new thread and widened distribution! Here's some context, Sam thinks uuids are uninteresting and not useful in imported data. Michael, below, thinks uuids are useful. Now the rest of the conversation in context.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Michael Barabanov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > I'm not talking about keeping CODE=2270010. That's indeed not terribly > useful. But UUIDs allow us to later > match the imported features to potentially more complete Canvec datasets. > Example: imagine next Canvec data comes in that also has name= for each > park. If we keep UUIDs in imported data, it's trivial to write a script > to implement a join between the two feature set based on UUID and update > the OSM with park names. > > We decided to keep UUID for NRN segments for similar reasons. On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Sam Vekemans <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, > as long as by 'us' you mean 'not me' :-) > 'cause i dont know how to 'trivially' use UUID as a tool like that. > > Have you tested that? > > I can put a note on the readme.txt file, and on the wiki about it. > > Do we have a seconder for this change? (its a BIG change) A seconder, Sam? Here is a short list of those from talk-ca who believe that a uuid is a good idea in a Canadian import: You - http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002322.html Steve S - http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2009-February/000705.html Michel - http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2009-January/000612.html Austin - http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2009-June/001223.html James - http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2009-June/001138.html me - http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2009-June/001293.html _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
