stevea writes:
> I'll state even more strongly than Frederik just did: "linking to an
> OSM object by ID and expecting the ID to remain constant is asking for
> trouble" is putting it mildly. It IS trouble. All it takes is one
> single change to one single datum and boom, the assumption that
Jan 2, 2023, 21:59 by ajt1...@gmail.com:
> On 02/01/2023 20:44, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>> way/node/relation ids in OSM are unstable, not promised to be stable and
>> anything relying on their stability can break at any point
>>
> Unfortunately, that sort of "black and white"
I am “with” Andy here, yet I am also “with" Frederik here: you might be able
to get away with this “most of the time,” but when it fails (and it will),
you’ll be disappointed and perhaps even upset with OSM. There is simply no
reason why we should be suggesting or supporting this. Because it
Hi,
On 02.01.23 21:59, Andy Townsend wrote:
It's certainly possible (as I've said in that discussion) to use OSM IDs
as "stable enough to do real work with" - I do it all the time.
But establishing a "standard" to do it would likely exert pressure on
mappers not to do anything that would
Not quite unexpected this discussion has already gone off on a tangent
about stable ids. My question on the other hand would be: what do you
actually want to achieve and what would you expect an application to do
with the parameter?
It should be noted that we already have a couple of URI
5 matches
Mail list logo
