I would highly encourage retaining them. (of course! : ) ) Unless there's another plan for retaining some association, it could be very helpful in the future for referencing between OSM and MassGIS records. And... maybe there's other information in the Mass records that an OSMer might want to look up.
There are other efforts to index buildings worldwide (outside of OSM, which does this in a way), such as the Built Works Registry ( http://builtworksregistry.wordpress.com/) that might also benefit from this. And, if/when semantic information is available, or until there's some sort of UUID for buildings, this storage could prove useful. My 2 cents... On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alex Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul - > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Paul Norman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Any future work with the data after it's imported will have to handle > > buildings without IDs. I included IDs in two of my imports and have found > > them useless. I think that without a clear plan to use them (i.e. one > with > > code) you shouldn't be including government department specific metadata > > like this. > > How specifically did you find them useless? I mean was it just that to > your knowledge nobody's using them or is there something inherently broken > in the case of your imports (e. g. those id's change outside of OSM and > hence can't be used as reference). > > Alex Barth > http://twitter.com/lxbarth > tel (+1) 202 250 3633 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org [email protected] 206-676-2347
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
