Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Greg Troxel]

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 doing
> so can work is proven false.  I'll offer to be the first to change an
> ID to do this just on the general principle that it proves this is a
> bad idea.
>
> So, this (linking to an OSM object by ID and expecting the ID to remain 
> constant) is a non-starter.  Right here, right now.

And, the real harm is the seconds-after-links-exist push that people
should not edit in a way that changes IDs.

The IETF should not support referring to unstable IDs because that's bad
engineering.

People who want to refer to osm objects need to

  understand what it means when it's a named way and how the reference
  should behave as the way is split and micromapped

  how to bind by type/name so it's stable in some sensible semantic
  sense, sort of a combo of
name
type
rough coordinates (to disambiguate the above)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

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" answer doesn't really answer 
> the question of whether it's useful to link to OSM data like that.
>
It is often useful, but we should try to avoid implying that this ids will stay 
stable forever.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1325892214 works well as link for such cases,
making some official uri scheme is implying things that we should not be 
implying.


> 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.
>
I also do this, but without expectations of id stability. 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[stevea]

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 WILL fail.

For that reason, I say “don’t do it.”  And please don’t suggest others should, 
either.  At least once, it won’t end well, and that will be one too many times.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Frederik Ramm]

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 change an ID (I am imagining pink 
warning boxes on the wiki explaining that you should avoid this or that 
because it will cause lots of dangling links from the outside into OSM).


You're currently doing at your own risk and if it doesn't work then you 
have no right to complain. Once we encourage people to create such links 
from outside applications that are unknown (and might be inaccessible) 
to us, these people will complain when links break.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Simon Poole]

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 schemes in use 
for OSM based tools/editors, and naturally the website object/element 
browsing support.


Simon

Am 02.01.2023 um 18:57 schrieb Sören Reinecke:


Hey,

It came into my mind to get IETF to standardize a parameter explicitly 
linking to osm objects with their corresponding type and id.


The 'geo' URI scheme is standardized as RFC 5870 
 with examples of usage 
. It allows us to 
link to geospatial ressources from web pages or applications 
supporting URI schemes in general. It allows (web) developers to 
direct their users to their map browser of use e.g, Organic Maps, 
Google Maps, Apple Maps, ... The official osm.org makes use of this 
specification in the "share" feature already. Currently it only 
supports linking to geospatial ressources by their coordinates and not 
some id. As OpenStreetMap is playing an important part in the 
geospatial world, the OSMF should try to get IETF convinced.


See registered URI parameters in the 'geo' URI scheme:
'geo' URI Parameters registry at IANA.org 



Our own parameter could have the following syntax:

osmid=(N|W|R)


What do you think?

Greetings

Sören Reinecke


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk