2009/6/26 Sam Vekemans <acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
> Im sending it out to everyone, as its of international significance when
> dealing with bulk data.
>
> The 4 general tags
> attribution=Natural Resources Canada
> - tells the users what agency it came from (public/private)
>
> created_by=canvec2osm
> - tell the user what program was used to create it. ... ie. blame me if the
> script doesnt work or is wrong.
>
> source=CanVec_Import_2009
> -tells the user what import project session it is ... ie. next year we might
> do an import again for the updates.
>
> canvec:UUID=11CF43756692E5F4E0409C8467120387
> - is the 'lot number / series and actual product identifier, more detailed
> than the bar code (' which tells the user the identity of each node/way/area
> they are looking at.
>
> The 5th, which is currently being debated
> canvec:CODE=1200020
> - This is the feature identifier, the SKU (Stock keeping unit) or the BIB
> (Library catelogue number). This tells the user which
> Library/floor/section/shelf/book/page number that they are looking at. When
> the UUID identifies each character on the page.
> Not having this CODE, would be like going to the library and asking if they
> have a word in a book of 11CF43756692E5F4E0409C8467120387, when the CODE is
> human-readable. The 0 at the end means its a NODE a 1 - means a way and a 2
> means an area. The 120 at the begining means it's part of the 1200009 series
> of features. and the '2' means it's the 2nd feature type in the set.
> Like identifing 2 identical books, 'Times Atlas' where they has different
> UUID's, but the same Catelogue code.
>
> So does anyone have objections to the logic and usefullness behind me
> keeping canvec:CODE? Or any arguments for/against what i wrote above?..
> And at the same time im recommending for all imports that this gets added
> (it its available).
>
Where are these tags going?
Some definitely belong on changesets (there's no way
source=CanVec_Import_2009 needs to be on every object when it's the
same for everything you upload), whereas the UUID looks like it should
be on the objects themselves.
Also I'm a bit confused about what this CODE is. Is it about finding
the feature, or about telling you what the feature is? If it's just
what the feature is then it's possibly redundant. If it's about
finding it, then is it likely to be the same for all elements of an
upload? -- in which case it can also go on the changset.
Dave
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
