For me, the convincing argument is not ease of querying; the convincing argument is essentially namespacing. "uprn" and "usrn" are rather generic initialisms, and I don't see any useful reason for our uk/gb project to claim the "meaning" of ref:uprn or ref:usrn within OSM's tag namespace.
I notice that "ref:usrn" has been used a lot - but in fact primarily it came three years ago during a tree import in Birmingham. So even though it's been used a lot, it's largely confined to one user/project and I wouldn't consider it widespread. Best Dan Op za 11 apr. 2020 om 02:06 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>: > > Why country codes? OSM is geospatially aware. > > On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > > <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM <tonyo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging. > >>> Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data? > >>> What should they be? > > [snip] > >> So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or > >> ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think? > > Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of > > course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn > > and ref:GB:usrn . > > > > Robert. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb