On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > I think you are again making the mistake of mixing various layers of > meaning. If someone deletes an object in OSM to trace it anew, from better > imagery for example, then he is creating a new model, and the old model > ceases to exist. It is perfectly ok for a link to the old model to return > 404.
Presumably you're being facetious, and know full well that what we're talking about is the use case of people using OSM links to link to a surrogate for a real world object, rather than the OSM link itself. When I linked from Wikipedia to an OSM relation describing a bike path, it's because that OSM relation is the most precise description of the bike path available on the web. >As I said, if there is a mistake here then it is probably in your expectation, >not in what OSM is doing; and it may be >our fault to have given you that expectation by using a REST interface. We >should take care to make clear on the >Wiki that OSM is a database of models of things - models that may vanish at >any time - and not a database of things. Is it really the case that we don't want the OSM servers to provide useful "read-only" services? How come? Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
