Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Erkin, the whole idea of the permanent ID is for it to always point to the > same "conceptual" object. If I create a road, and use an ID for that road > somewhere, I would like that ID to continue working even if

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

30-11-2017 22:56 tarihinde Yuri Astrakhan yazdı: > > If you edit a road, a new one would be created and would point to its > invalidated ancestor. Recursively chasing previous ID pointers, you > would eventually have an object without an ancestor. ID of that object > would also be

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

> If you edit a road, a new one would be created and would point to its > invalidated ancestor. Recursively chasing previous ID pointers, you > would eventually have an object without an ancestor. ID of that object > would also be permanent ID of the successor objects. This will also > solve road

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

Le 30. 11. 17 à 20:30, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit : > If I create a road, and use an ID for that road somewhere, I would like > that ID to continue working even if the road gets broken up into > multiple segments. why not use the existing overpass features ? you can define which criteria determine

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

If you edit a road, a new one would be created and would point to its invalidated ancestor. Recursively chasing previous ID pointers, you would eventually have an object without an ancestor. ID of that object would also be permanent ID of the successor objects. This will also solve road split

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

> > Immutable objects with a previous ID field would solve that. Every edit > will create or delete, no modify. First version's ID will be your > persistent ID. > Erkin, the whole idea of the permanent ID is for it to always point to the same "conceptual" object. If I create a road, and use an ID

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Implementing the permanent ID is conceptually (relatively) simple, but > would require a lot of work.  "When to break continuity" seems to be > the philosophical sticking point, as pointed out by others in this > discussion.  We could agree on some general continuity

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

> > I think permanent IDs should be done with our own Wikidata. Wikibase is a > Wikimedia extension, that means our own Wiki can install OSMData right now. > Then if you want to open a permanent ID for a shop, create a new OSMData > item, and tag the shop with OSMData=M38267 (M instead of Q, for

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

I think permanent IDs should be done with our own Wikidata. Wikibase is a Wikimedia extension, that means our own Wiki can install OSMData right now. Then if you want to open a permanent ID for a shop, create a new OSMData item, and tag the shop with OSMData=M38267 (M instead of Q, for Map). This

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

On Thursday 30 November 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Biggest issue IMHO that came up in the UUID discussion is that it is > unclear what the ID relates to, and mappers cannot be expected to > handle that topic in all its complexity properly. Note essentially the same applies to wikidata tags -

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

2017-11-30 7:42 GMT+01:00, Yuri Astrakhan : >> * What if the shop moves to a new address ? What if someone already >> recorded the shop at the new location, how do we merge the IDs? > If we decide that a moved shop should have the same id, than this is a case > for

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

Immutable objects with a previous ID field would solve that. Every edit will create or delete, no modify. First version's ID will be your persistent ID. 30-11-2017 10:28 tarihinde Frederik Ramm yazdı: > Ah, I forgot to say: The result of many, lengthy, previous discussions > about permanent IDs

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

Ah, I forgot to say: The result of many, lengthy, previous discussions about permanent IDs was generally: We don't want to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining a permanent ID in OSM that others can use for easy linking; instead, those others should be doing that work for themselves. Hence

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

Hi, On 30.11.2017 03:13, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Permanent IDs has been brought up several times, especially as part of > the Wikidata ID discussion. I started a wiki page to outline the > requirements and goals, but it might be incomplete, feel free to add / > correct / comment. See

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

Marc, good points, thanks. Naturally it will never be decided by software. The tools should aid in continuity preservation, not dictate it. We as a community should definitely how each one of these and other cases should be handled -- to define what "permanence" means. > > * What if the shop

Re: [Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

I also see several problems to define the "same" concept: * a shop that closes (bankrupt) and a new that opens afterwards. Is this the same shop ? Is there a difference when the shop owner remains the same? When the products they sell are the same (I have a case of bakery that closed and opened

[Tagging] Permanent IDs RFC (was part_of:wikidata)

Permanent IDs has been brought up several times, especially as part of the Wikidata ID discussion. I started a wiki page to outline the requirements and goals, but it might be incomplete, feel free to add / correct / comment. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permanent_ID Once we reach the