2013/5/7 Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de>: > you would not delete the whole object and add a new object with the > building tag alone, right?
I said that it's up to the mapper to decide - as its common in OSM. External services which link to this object through the permanent id have to cope with this. Yours, Stefan 2013/5/7 Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de>: > Unfortunately I'm too busy to investigate how much elements in OSM > change their meaning instead of deleting the old and creating the new > object. > > In addition your "fooling the concept" is not correct. If a supermarket > is abandoned, and was tagged as a building + name + shop=supermarket, > you would not delete the whole object and add a new object with the > building tag alone, right? > > regards > Peter > > Am 07.05.2013 10:25, schrieb Stefan Keller: >> 2013/5/7 Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de>: >>> Look what happens in OSM all the time: POIs are moved slightly to match >>> aerial images - following your definition that should be another ID now >> >> No, That's one of the nice properties of ids without coordinates! >> To me it would remain the same - except when a tool or the user is >> fooling the concept. >> At least the tools you can debug. >> >> Yours, Stefan >> >> 2013/5/7 Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de>: >>> Am 07.05.2013 09:58, schrieb Stefan Keller: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> You wrote: >>>>> - it's roughly in that bounding box (e.g. the city or a given part of >>>> >>>> A soon as you use the word "roughly" - the id approach is doomed to fail. >>>> According to OO and database technology an id is a well-defined >>>> surrogate with a well-defined data type. >>> >>> Then it's not the same "permanent" we talk about. >>> Look what happens in OSM all the time: POIs are moved slightly to match >>> aerial images - following your definition that should be another ID now >>> - but that's not what people usually want if they request for a >>> permanent ID, similar to changes from node to polygon to multipolyogn etc. >>> >>> "It's in that bounding box" nevertheless would have been the better >>> wording, (equalling "is roughly at that position, so if you want to use >>> roughly/estimation, it's possible even then). >>> >>> regards >>> Peter >> > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
