On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote: > Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few > hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, > I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have > been the better option.
Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons: 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. 2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that "source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather than the alternative colon separated versions. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
