On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 09:16, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/28/18 18:46, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote: > > By having the integrationprocess in place, we can make sure that the > > data is properly integrated, properly attributed and backreferenced for > > future updates. > > I am always skeptical of imports trying to uphold links to an external > database, and would recommend *not* keeping any IDs from the source > object in OSM. I *strongly* recommend including links (or IDs, that can be used in links) to external databases. This is vital for two reasons: it indicates the *precise* provenance of the sourced data; and it makes OSM a better able to function as part of the web of linked-, open-, data. > Keeping a link to the source signals to the mapper "don't touch this, > it's official data" or "your edits can be overwritten by a future import". That may be your interpretation; it is most certainly not mine. Do you have any evidence that anyone other than you interprets links in this bizarre manner? > More often than not, importers keep an external ID because they think > "it might be useful later". Again, please provide evidence to support this assertion. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
