On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 08:39 +0100, Yves wrote: > > > Le 10 janvier 2023 08:12:43 GMT+01:00, Snusmumriken > <snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com> a écrit : > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +0000, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer > > > > > to > > > > > ids > > > > > will cause social pressure not to change ids, > > > > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? > > > > > > There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people > > > "resurrect" > > > old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" > > > such > > > as > > > never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other > > > feature. There have also been complaints about changes to > > > objects > > > that > > > people consider "special" such as > > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 > > > and, er, > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 . > > > > Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining > > existing > > osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. > > Any > > proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the > > bad > > practice? > > > No, adding such a URI scheme wouldn't change at all the way > contributors contribute. > > However it would further degrade the impact of the "bad practice".
Could you elaborate? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
