Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 13:09, Anthony  wrote:
> By the way, I assume we should break this out to an off-list discussion, or
> on a different list, or something.
>
> My apologies to those who don't like a lot of traffic on talk.
>
> OSM-verbose, anyone?
>

I attempted to start a thread on the tagging list but this topic keeps
getting pushed back to the talk list.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 13:04, Anthony  wrote:
> I just think it'd be a lot easier to say uuid=*, uuid_type=lamp post.
> Because uuid:highway=* is incredibly non-intuitive.  Of course, that doesn't
> work because then you can't have multiple uuids on a single object without
> creating relations or unnecessarily duplicating objects.  The OSM database
> doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.

Just because something would be easier, doesn't mean it is better, you
also have to remember that these key/value pairs are inherently not
for human consumption, while there would need to be some kind of human
interaction in figuring out which object you were trying to link to,
this doesn't nessicarily mean that existing editors are the best way
to do it.

I'm currently trying to extend the proof of concept to include a web
page for people to cross reference links between say wikipedia and OSM
to show you what I mean, but it'll take me a little time to develop
and test it.

> No, because there's no easy way to tie the note to the the uuid.  What if
> you want two notes, one of which is a note for uuid:building and one of
> which is a note for uuid:operator?  Again, can't do it easily in OSM,
> because the OSM database doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.

Personally I don't think a comment is needed, you are trying to link
databases together, while it might not be 100% obvious who is linking
to OSM for what reason, the need to link is the objective of this
exercise.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

By the way, I assume we should break this out to an off-list discussion, or
on a different list, or something.

My apologies to those who don't like a lot of traffic on talk.

OSM-verbose, anyone?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:55 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 8 June 2010 12:46, Anthony  wrote:
> > How else are you going to describe what your object is?  I don't see a
> > uuid:lamp_post in your list of examples.  I guess that would be,
> > uuid:man_made?  I don't think many people are going to figure that out.
>  In
> > fact, I can't even really figure it out.
>
> If I had all the details nutted out this wouldn't still be a proposal :)
>
> In your next email you suggest they are highway tags, so uuid:highway=*
>

I just think it'd be a lot easier to say uuid=*, uuid_type=lamp post.
Because uuid:highway=* is incredibly non-intuitive.  Of course, that doesn't
work because then you can't have multiple uuids on a single object without
creating relations or unnecessarily duplicating objects.  The OSM database
doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> If someone needed to add a description can't they just use the note=*
> tag? Which then makes it a display issue.

No, because there's no easy way to tie the note to the the uuid.  What if
you want two notes, one of which is a note for uuid:building and one of
which is a note for uuid:operator?  Again, can't do it easily in OSM,
because the OSM database doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 12:55, Anthony  wrote:
> Fair enough.  So the description is optional.

If someone needed to add a description can't they just use the note=*
tag? Which then makes it a display issue.

One purpose of unique IDs is to inter-link databases, while it's nice
to know which databases are linking to OSM objects, it shouldn't be
mandatory, just like we shouldn't have to add comments for every
aspect of why we tagged something in some particular way.

Paul from Freebase has already indicated they were/are planning to
dump Freebase IDs into the OSM DB to make their life easier*, however
if every 3rd party site did this we'd end up with an unmanageable list
of unique IDs against OSM objects and in that situation I can pretty
much guarantee that these most likely won't be maintained properly, or
simply bulk reverted/deleted as they shouldn't be in the OSM DB.

On the other hand if we provide people the means of being able to link
to OSM objects without them all dumping their own keys in our database
things are much more likely to turn out better for everyone.

* http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/freebase-discuss/2010-June/001847.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 12:46, Anthony  wrote:
> I'm not the one who brought up free form text, you are.

This is why this is a proposal and why we are discussing things to
brain storm...

> Otherwise, we have no basis to maintain the link, and they might as well
> just link to the node.

That's the whole point of UUIDs, because they want to link to the
node, but linking using DB IDs is a bad idea, so I thought using an ID
that can be shifted from one object to another might be a better idea.
The ID is so you can link to the object without needing to worry about
finding the node if it's replaced by an area.

> How else are you going to describe what your object is?  I don't see a
> uuid:lamp_post in your list of examples.  I guess that would be,
> uuid:man_made?  I don't think many people are going to figure that out.  In
> fact, I can't even really figure it out.

If I had all the details nutted out this wouldn't still be a proposal :)

In your next email you suggest they are highway tags, so uuid:highway=*

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:51 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 8 June 2010 12:50, Anthony  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> >>
> >> Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least
> the
> >> node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.
> >
> > http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/highway/street_lamp
> >
> > Still not sure what the use case would be, though :).
> >
>
> Tagging what's on the ground? There are some very decroative, and
> possibly historical lamp posts in existence.
>
> If people are tagging individual trees I don't see why other actual
> objects can't be either as long as they are of interest to someone or
> a group of people
>

Fair enough.  So the description is optional.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 12:50, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>> Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least the
>> node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.
>
> http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/highway/street_lamp
>
> Still not sure what the use case would be, though :).
>

Tagging what's on the ground? There are some very decroative, and
possibly historical lamp posts in existence.

If people are tagging individual trees I don't see why other actual
objects can't be either as long as they are of interest to someone or
a group of people

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least the
> node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.
>

http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/highway/street_lamp

Still not sure what the use case would be, though :).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:18 PM, John Smith wrote:

> You might be confusing a couple of issues here, when you look at OSM
> tags you are viewing a simplified database, that is the raw data, what
> you are describing is presentation of that data in a more human
> friendly way, this isn't the same thing as free form text.
>

I'm not the one who brought up free form text, you are.

I highly doubt anyone would seriously want to document, beyond what
> already exists in the OSM DB, every possible object anyone would want
> to link to, eg someone takes a picture of a lamp post because it looks
> interesting for a photo and wants to link it to the OSM object that
> might describe the location and height of the object.
>

Do we have such objects in OSM?

In any case, I don't think "anyone" will want to document "what already
exists in the OSM DB".  I would expect someone creating an ID to link to
(i.e. the person who uploaded the picture) to put in a brief description of
what they're linking to, though (at the very least "a cool lamp post").
Otherwise, we have no basis to maintain the link, and they might as well
just link to the node.

Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least the
node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.

If on the other hand the object is worth commenting on or further
> describing, this is where something like wikipedia or freebase would
> be useful, you link the wikipedia/freebase IDs to the OSM ID and then
> you can write a three page essay on the object.
>

A three page description would be way too long.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there is a specific need for free
> form text but there is a need to link the text to a map object.
>

How else are you going to describe what your object is?  I don't see a
uuid:lamp_post in your list of examples.  I guess that would be,
uuid:man_made?  I don't think many people are going to figure that out.  In
fact, I can't even really figure it out.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 12:09, Anthony  wrote:
> I'm not sure.  The description would be fairly freeform.  I can't think of
> anything else that would be as freeform as that.
>
> I call it a wiki but I imagine most of the data would be structured.  In
> fact, in many ways I think it'd be better structured than OSM data, which
> doesn't currently allow for arrays or sets or type checking.
>
> Not much different from http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27940475,
> except that "edit" wouldn't require flash, and it'd be formatted a little
> better (*).  If the OSM database could better support structures, and
> especially arrays of structures, it could even use the OSM database for
> storage.  But I'm not sure that's going to happen.  For those things that
> are supported by the OSM database, the wiki would use the API.
>
> (*) For instance, instead of "addr:housenumber=411" and "addr:street=Elm
> Street", it'd say "Address: 411 Elm Street".

You might be confusing a couple of issues here, when you look at OSM
tags you are viewing a simplified database, that is the raw data, what
you are describing is presentation of that data in a more human
friendly way, this isn't the same thing as free form text.

I highly doubt anyone would seriously want to document, beyond what
already exists in the OSM DB, every possible object anyone would want
to link to, eg someone takes a picture of a lamp post because it looks
interesting for a photo and wants to link it to the OSM object that
might describe the location and height of the object.

If on the other hand the object is worth commenting on or further
describing, this is where something like wikipedia or freebase would
be useful, you link the wikipedia/freebase IDs to the OSM ID and then
you can write a three page essay on the object.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there is a specific need for free
form text but there is a need to link the text to a map object.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

> >> If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
> >> extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
> >> you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
> >> link other object IDs from other databases to it.
> >
> > Do you have a link?  I'm not familiar with that proposal.
>
> I was hoping to have something done before I brought it up, but at
> present it's still in my head. I have for the time being included your
> previous wording about using a wiki on the proposal, but left it open
> because while I don't think a wiki would be the best solution, I'd be
> interested to know if you have a good reason for needing freeform
> text.
>

I'm not sure.  The description would be fairly freeform.  I can't think of
anything else that would be as freeform as that.

I call it a wiki but I imagine most of the data would be structured.  In
fact, in many ways I think it'd be better structured than OSM data, which
doesn't currently allow for arrays or sets or type checking.

Not much different from http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27940475,
except that "edit" wouldn't require flash, and it'd be formatted a little
better (*).  If the OSM database could better support structures, and
especially arrays of structures, it could even use the OSM database for
storage.  But I'm not sure that's going to happen.  For those things that
are supported by the OSM database, the wiki would use the API.

(*) For instance, instead of "addr:housenumber=411" and "addr:street=Elm
Street", it'd say "Address: 411 Elm Street".
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 11:04, Anthony  wrote:
> Just to clarify, I don't mean to imply that they'd be right, just that I 
> could see it happening.

I'm still trying to find someone that has self printed suitable
stickers to find out how to do it at a reasonable cost, while it might
be cheap to print 100 stickers commercially in our case we want 100
different stickers.

>> If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
>> extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
>> you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
>> link other object IDs from other databases to it.
>
> Do you have a link?  I'm not familiar with that proposal.

I was hoping to have something done before I brought it up, but at
present it's still in my head. I have for the time being included your
previous wording about using a wiki on the proposal, but left it open
because while I don't think a wiki would be the best solution, I'd be
interested to know if you have a good reason for needing freeform
text.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:16 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 7 June 2010 23:39, Anthony  wrote:
> > Either way, I could see someone going around removing uuid=* tags from
> > places where they couldn't find the QR code in the store window.
>
> UUIDs aren't just so you can slap a QR code in some shop window


Just to clarify, I don't mean to imply that they'd be right, just that I
could see it happening.


> Also just because something isn't
> on the ground shouldn't mean it should be deleted just because someone
> is overly zealot about only having things in the database that are on
> the ground, otherwise we might as well start deleting half the state
> and country borders that have nothing on the ground.
>

To be clear, I agree.


> If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
> extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
> you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
> link other object IDs from other databases to it.
>

Do you have a link?  I'm not familiar with that proposal.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 8 June 2010 10:16, John Smith  wrote:
>> I'd prefer that.  But if the "let's try to get consensus for a new tag"
>> process fails, there's always "shove it into an already accepted tag"
>> option.  (At which point it'd probably be website:uuid=*, or even
>> website:uuid:building/operator/etc=*)
>
> I don't think that's a terribly good idea, this information isn't
> suppose to render on any maps so sub-typing isn't advantageous, also
> UUIDs are object references, they aren't supposed to be website
> referrers, that is simply one use case, but not the main use case.

Also anyone tracking OSM change sets using hstore would be able to do
their own UUID lookup table without any code changes, you just need to
query the database for the UUID and you'll be able to locate the OSM
object it's attached to.

It will take a little more effort to build a cross-reference table of
foreign IDs, but the information collected by someone or some group to
do this could be published as changesets similar to OSM changesets and
then others could keep their own local lookup table as well, having
such an easily distributed database will be much more useful to the
internet in general than a single wiki.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 23:39, Anthony  wrote:
> Well, I'm sure even the most ardent "map only what's on the ground"
> proponents will make exceptions for things which are legally required.  As

If attribution is legally required the attribution tag should be used,
not the source tag, the source tag is for indicating the source of the
information.

> for source tags that *aren't* legally required, I'd actually argue myself
> that as metatags they should be on the changeset, not the element.

This is getting pretty far off topic, even if this thread started it,
but some people think that is sufficient although I disagree since
people may be mapping from multiple sources of information at the same
time, eg they might get the name from wikipedia and the location from
aerial imagery and the turning restriction from a survey, but that
information may not be the same for all object edited...

> Either way, I could see someone going around removing uuid=* tags from
> places where they couldn't find the QR code in the store window.

UUIDs aren't just so you can slap a QR code in some shop window, that
is merely one use case, it's so different databases can explicitly
identify an object, it might be some park someone photographer wants
to link their photos to in Flickr. Also just because something isn't
on the ground shouldn't mean it should be deleted just because someone
is overly zealot about only having things in the database that are on
the ground, otherwise we might as well start deleting half the state
and country borders that have nothing on the ground.

> I'd suggest that we should have a single website=* or uuid=* link to an
> all-inclusive wiki (can't use Wikipedia as that single website because of
> their notability rules), and that all other linking to any other websites
> should be done by adding an external link from that wiki page.

Why does it have to be a wiki? While a wiki might be usable as a point
to document tags, it's not perfect, it takes a lot of work cross
referencing information which is just duplicating work already in the
OSM database, but I won't go into that here and is really for another
thread as well. While documenting tags requires free form text for the
description, wiki's are mostly for human use, not machines however for
machines to use a reference source the information usually has to be
very explicit.

If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
link other object IDs from other databases to it.

> I'd prefer that.  But if the "let's try to get consensus for a new tag"
> process fails, there's always "shove it into an already accepted tag"
> option.  (At which point it'd probably be website:uuid=*, or even
> website:uuid:building/operator/etc=*)

I don't think that's a terribly good idea, this information isn't
suppose to render on any maps so sub-typing isn't advantageous, also
UUIDs are object references, they aren't supposed to be website
referrers, that is simply one use case, but not the main use case.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:18 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 7 June 2010 23:12, Anthony  wrote:
> > The only thing I'm really afraid of is that these tags would violate what
> > some people seem to believe is a rule - the supposed "map only what's on
> the
> > ground" rule.  Do the website=* and wikipedia=* tags violate this rule?
>
> Using that logic, source=* from aerial imagery, would need to be
> removed,


Well, I'm sure even the most ardent "map only what's on the ground"
proponents will make exceptions for things which are legally required.  As
for source tags that *aren't* legally required, I'd actually argue myself
that as metatags they should be on the changeset, not the element.

Either way, I could see someone going around removing uuid=* tags from
places where they couldn't find the QR code in the store window.


> although if wikipedia starts linking to OSM objects do we
> need to also link to wikipedia objects?
>

I'd suggest that we should have a single website=* or uuid=* link to an
all-inclusive wiki (can't use Wikipedia as that single website because of
their notability rules), and that all other linking to any other websites
should be done by adding an external link from that wiki page.

So, no.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:18 AM, John Smith wrote:

> While you can embed a UUID in a URL I would suggest it gets it's own
> tag since lots of objects already get a website tag.
>

I'd prefer that.  But if the "let's try to get consensus for a new tag"
process fails, there's always "shove it into an already accepted tag"
option.  (At which point it'd probably be website:uuid=*, or even
website:uuid:building/operator/etc=*)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 23:12, Anthony  wrote:
> What about the website=* tag?  Do people tend to maintain them?  Because
> website=u.osm.org/c9f0f516-7da2-4cf0-a455-b09f90792c7d would work equally
> well and wouldn't require any new tags.

While you can embed a UUID in a URL I would suggest it gets it's own
tag since lots of objects already get a website tag.

> I don't think the uuid tags would be treated perfectly.  But they do seem
> like they'd be better than nothing, even if only some portion of the mappers
> maintain them.  Also, I'm one of those mappers that will sometimes delete
> tags I don't know.  But not if they're given an objective explanation in the
> wiki.

+1 any tags that are used should be documented, or at least discussed
and there may be a similar tag already used that is better.

> The only thing I'm really afraid of is that these tags would violate what
> some people seem to believe is a rule - the supposed "map only what's on the
> ground" rule.  Do the website=* and wikipedia=* tags violate this rule?

Using that logic, source=* from aerial imagery, would need to be
removed, although if wikipedia starts linking to OSM objects do we
need to also link to wikipedia objects?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Anthony]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Peter Körner wrote:

> I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either - they are
> subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they
> don't know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they
> create polys for them.
>

What about the website=* tag?  Do people tend to maintain them?  Because
website=u.osm.org/c9f0f516-7da2-4cf0-a455-b09f90792c7d would work equally
well and wouldn't require any new tags.

I don't think the uuid tags would be treated perfectly.  But they do seem
like they'd be better than nothing, even if only some portion of the mappers
maintain them.  Also, I'm one of those mappers that will sometimes delete
tags I don't know.  But not if they're given an objective explanation in the
wiki.

The only thing I'm really afraid of is that these tags would violate what
some people seem to believe is a rule - the supposed "map only what's on the
ground" rule.  Do the website=* and wikipedia=* tags violate this rule?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 20:05, Lester Caine  wrote:
> UUID is an already well structured unique id so there is no point trying to
> redesign it ... lets just use it ...

I haven't seen anyone argue against UUIDs specifically, just some
people have approached the problem of trying to use existing tags to
uniquely identify something, but that assumes there is nothing
similarly tagged nearby, at which point someone has to go in and make
a tag change anyway, regardless if it is fixing up broken UUID
references or other tags.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Lester Caine]

John Smith wrote:
> XML is supposed to make data interchange between different databases
> easier, but once you start mixing datasets all bets are off, this has
> nothing to do with XML and everything to do with mixing datasets.
>
> As for your other point about UUIDs being useful, I think I agree with
> you, but then I have no idea what you mean by your next question.
>
>> >  Trying to 'create' a new type of unique ID would be pointless?

Actually it follows on from the 'mixing datasets' point. The UK has a well 
defined ID for every property in the United Kingdom. I have a large set of that 
data available for other purposes but I end up having to tag the unique 
property 
id's with something else as the same numbers appear in other data sets. Adding 
UUID references to the different datasets makes matching a whole of a lot 
easier.

UUID is an already well structured unique id so there is no point trying to 
redesign it ... lets just use it ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/6/7 Peter Körner :
> John Smith schrieb:
>  > Currently I've been making a proposal for OSM to adopt an UUID tagging
>  > scheme so that third parties wishing to directly refer to OSM objects
>  > can do so without the current problems of using internal database
>  > reference IDs vanishing in future.
> I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either


I think they do improve the situation - at least the mapper sees that
there is an external reference clued to a certain object.

 - they are
> subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they
> don't know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they
> create polys for them.


that's both not acceptable IMHO, espescially deleting tags the editor
doesn't know of is completely contradictory to the OSM principle of
free form tagging.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 19:45, Lester Caine  wrote:
> Internally generated id numbers are used to currently identify things. As long
> as those numbers do not change then they can be used to provide permanent 
> links
> to anything in the database. The problem - I think - is that these internal
> numbers are attached to a POI of some sort which may benefit from being able 
> to
> identify different facets of that point of interest? You either add separate
> poi's for the 'building' and the 'occupant' and the like so that you get
> different internal id's ... or we agree on a way of uniquely tagging 
> information
> in a manor that does not rely on the internal sub structure?

If you need to group objects, create a relation and then tag the
relation with a unique ID...

> XML is too flexible to rely on identifying distinct objects when taken in
> isolation from their deeper context, so some overall unique identifier has a
> place? UUID is an well designed unique id that suits the bill so why not use 
> it.

XML is supposed to make data interchange between different databases
easier, but once you start mixing datasets all bets are off, this has
nothing to do with XML and everything to do with mixing datasets.

As for your other point about UUIDs being useful, I think I agree with
you, but then I have no idea what you mean by your next question.

> Trying to 'create' a new type of unique ID would be pointless?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Lester Caine]

John Smith wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 19:19, Peter Körner  wrote:
>> But as you already said, you're not the first one with this idea and just
>> adding another id-tag doesn't make anything better. So please, let's first
>> check if this is *really* a good solution instead of just playing the
>> "my-id-is-better-than-yours"-game over again.
>
> I'm not saying my idea is perfect, which is why I put it on the wiki as a
> proposal, but I'm trying things out to see if they'll work, otherwise we're
> just assuming that they're all going to fail so we may as not try and address
> the issue.

Internally generated id numbers are used to currently identify things. As long 
as those numbers do not change then they can be used to provide permanent links 
to anything in the database. The problem - I think - is that these internal 
numbers are attached to a POI of some sort which may benefit from being able to 
identify different facets of that point of interest? You either add separate 
poi's for the 'building' and the 'occupant' and the like so that you get 
different internal id's ... or we agree on a way of uniquely tagging 
information 
in a manor that does not rely on the internal sub structure?

XML is too flexible to rely on identifying distinct objects when taken in
isolation from their deeper context, so some overall unique identifier has a
place? UUID is an well designed unique id that suits the bill so why not use it.
Trying to 'create' a new type of unique ID would be pointless?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[David Earl]

On 07/06/2010 10:22, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Then if you, as a mapper, find that the restaurant has
> moved across town you'll have to find out what to do with these UUIDs
> (or, more likely, you'll just leave them alone).

Isn't that going to be true whatever mechanism is used?

If the OSM object refers in some way to the entity, then if the entity 
changes (its location or relevant object) the OSM object may have to be 
updated. If the entity refers to the OSM object and the OSM object 
changes (location or identity) the entity may have to be updated. 
Presumably the updates can only be done by those with the appropriate 
knowledge.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 19:22, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> This could lead to an inflation of UUIDs on the object, and everyone who
> changes the object will have to decide which of them to keep, which to move,
> which to delete. For example, a restaurant would have one UUID for the
> building it is in, one UUID for the chef, one UUID for the pretty barmaid
> and so on - one UUID indeed for every single property someone wants to link
> to. Then if you, as a mapper, find that the restaurant has moved across town
> you'll have to find out what to do with these UUIDs (or, more likely, you'll
> just leave them alone).

By occupant I meant the business, not people... As for what to do
about the UUID, Peter has already pointed out solutions to the issue,
think of the UUIDs as a lookup table to speed up searching inside a
bbox every time you want to locate an object...

> Because if you link to a restaurant because it has a nice location, then
> changing the location would mean that the link is invalidated; if you link
> to the restaurant because of the chef, then not. You might also link to a
> restaurant because of the name (e.g. "Surprisingly, Hamburg has three
> restaurants named 'Chez something'...") - in which case the link would have
> to survive a move and a change in chefs but not a change in name.

I'm not talking about people, but the business occupying the building,
not the chef or the head waiter nor the .

> Is German English really so different from Australian English ;-)

It would certainly seem so.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 19:13, Peter Körner  wrote:
> Frederik Ramm schrieb:
>>
>> For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the
>> change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs are
>> not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.
>
> But location/tag combinations could:
>
>  ?bbox=$SOME-STREET$&amenity=restaurant&cuisine=italian
>
> could link to *any* restaurant in this place,
>
>  ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$&amenity=restaurant&operator=fred
>
> could link to *your* restaurant - this also works, if fred's going to open a
> whole restaurant chain,
>
>  ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$&amenity=restaurant&name=Chez%20Fred
>
> could link to *a specific* restaurant somewhere in the city.

You are guessing the details are going to be the same if things get
shifted, it won't help if the old node is deleted and a new one added
with a spelling mistake, or at the very least require just as much
intervention as fixing up missing UUIDs. In fact if a UUID is deleted
you could use similar searches you point out above to suggest where
the UUID should be shifted to, but leave it up to a person to make an
informed decision about it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 19:19, Peter Körner  wrote:
> But as you already said, you're not the first one with this idea and just
> adding another id-tag doesn't make anything better. So please, let's first
> check if this is *really* a good solution instead of just playing the
> "my-id-is-better-than-yours"-game over again.

I'm not saying my idea is perfect, which is why I put it on the wiki
as a proposal, but I'm trying things out to see if they'll work,
otherwise we're just assuming that they're all going to fail so we may
as not try and address the issue.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

John Smith wrote:
> You misunderstood, I wasn't talking about people tagging stuff moving
> across town, I was talking about the thing they tagged moving across
> town. 

Yes. And thereby a link might, or might not, lose its meaning.

> Also the current proposal suggests using multiple UUID tags if
> needed one for the occupant, one for the building in case they need to
> be split, if you only have one UUID and Flickr refers to the building
> and wikipedia refers to the occupant, who gets to keep the UUID if the
> occupant shifts?

This could lead to an inflation of UUIDs on the object, and everyone who 
changes the object will have to decide which of them to keep, which to 
move, which to delete. For example, a restaurant would have one UUID for 
the building it is in, one UUID for the chef, one UUID for the pretty 
barmaid and so on - one UUID indeed for every single property someone 
wants to link to. Then if you, as a mapper, find that the restaurant has 
moved across town you'll have to find out what to do with these UUIDs 
(or, more likely, you'll just leave them alone).

>> For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the
>> change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs are
>> not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.
> 
> I fail to see your point here, why would changing properties cause
> problems with UUIDs that are allocated independently of the existing
> OSM ID information?

Because if you link to a restaurant because it has a nice location, then 
changing the location would mean that the link is invalidated; if you 
link to the restaurant because of the chef, then not. You might also 
link to a restaurant because of the name (e.g. "Surprisingly, Hamburg 
has three restaurants named 'Chez something'...") - in which case the 
link would have to survive a move and a change in chefs but not a change 
in name.

Is German English really so different from Australian English ;-)

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Peter Körner]

John Smith schrieb:
> I think you have misunderstood or at least not comprehended the
> potential for being able to easily share ...

I think I did.

But as you already said, you're not the first one with this idea and 
just adding another id-tag doesn't make anything better. So please, 
let's first check if this is *really* a good solution instead of just 
playing the "my-id-is-better-than-yours"-game over again.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Peter Körner]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the 
> change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs 
> are not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.

But location/tag combinations could:

   ?bbox=$SOME-STREET$&amenity=restaurant&cuisine=italian

could link to *any* restaurant in this place,

   ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$&amenity=restaurant&operator=fred

could link to *your* restaurant - this also works, if fred's going to 
open a whole restaurant chain,

   ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$&amenity=restaurant&name=Chez%20Fred

could link to *a specific* restaurant somewhere in the city.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 19:08, John Smith  wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 18:51, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> Sounds like a rather hypothetical situation to me but if I ever found myself
>> in such a situation I would simply assign a block of negative IDs to every
>> participant and have them use these. Just like in an .osc document really.
>
> That is a solution, I'm not sure if it's the best solution, again
> we're guessing which would work better.
>

The down side with negative IDs is you can't track them in any way
once they're upload without getting the new IDs from the person that
uploaded, or guessing at map objects, in the case of Haiti there were
a lot of objects tagged with similar information and if the lat/lon
changes between revisions you'll end up with duplicates in the system.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 18:51, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Sounds like a rather hypothetical situation to me but if I ever found myself
> in such a situation I would simply assign a block of negative IDs to every
> participant and have them use these. Just like in an .osc document really.

That is a solution, I'm not sure if it's the best solution, again
we're guessing which would work better.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 19:01, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> It doesn't exactly require a stroke of genius to see that potential, given
> that people are already using our internal IDs all over the place for lack
> of something better.

I'm open to suggestion on what would be better, I don't think either
system is perfect and both have work arounds for their flaws.

> It does, however, require a stroke of genius to find a non-invasive and
> permanent way to solve this problem. Tagging objects with UUIDs is neither.

Unless we start trying out different solutions we'll only be guessing.
You're assuming they'll simply disappear, but they can be applied to a
new object, unlike the existing IDs.

> If you investigate the use cases for permantent IDs further, you will find
> that "moving across town" is often a valid reason for actually discarding
> the ID. As in, someone writes a travel guide and wants to link to a
> restaurant ("Chez Fred, an excellent pizza joint in the heart of Hamburg
> with views on the Elbe river traffic..."). Now if "Chez Fred" moves across
> town and is replaced, at the same location, with "Chez John", is it useful
> for the travel guide to still be able to link to "Chez Fred"? - Of course,
> if the travel guide said: "Chez Fred, an excellent pizza joint in Hamburg
> where renowned chef Frederik Ramm entertains his guests to Pizza Margherita
> every Tuesday", then it would have made sense to keep the link despite the
> move (but perhaps not so if the owner=... tag had changed...)

You misunderstood, I wasn't talking about people tagging stuff moving
across town, I was talking about the thing they tagged moving across
town. Also the current proposal suggests using multiple UUID tags if
needed one for the occupant, one for the building in case they need to
be split, if you only have one UUID and Flickr refers to the building
and wikipedia refers to the occupant, who gets to keep the UUID if the
occupant shifts?

> For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the
> change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs are
> not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.

I fail to see your point here, why would changing properties cause
problems with UUIDs that are allocated independently of the existing
OSM ID information? I'm not suggesting here to replace the internal ID
numbers with something else, but use static tags so they can be
shifted between objects.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Frederik Ramm]

John,

John Smith wrote:
> I think you have misunderstood or at least not comprehended the
> potential for being able to easily share the same ID with other
> databases without needing to do special or complex bbox searches like
> you suggest. 

It doesn't exactly require a stroke of genius to see that potential, 
given that people are already using our internal IDs all over the place 
for lack of something better.

It does, however, require a stroke of genius to find a non-invasive and 
permanent way to solve this problem. Tagging objects with UUIDs is neither.

> It might do so, but it's horribly inefficient as a result of needing
> to do searches across areas, and can't cope with an occupant such as a
> business moving across town

If you investigate the use cases for permantent IDs further, you will 
find that "moving across town" is often a valid reason for actually 
discarding the ID. As in, someone writes a travel guide and wants to 
link to a restaurant ("Chez Fred, an excellent pizza joint in the heart 
of Hamburg with views on the Elbe river traffic..."). Now if "Chez Fred" 
moves across town and is replaced, at the same location, with "Chez 
John", is it useful for the travel guide to still be able to link to 
"Chez Fred"? - Of course, if the travel guide said: "Chez Fred, an 
excellent pizza joint in Hamburg where renowned chef Frederik Ramm 
entertains his guests to Pizza Margherita every Tuesday", then it would 
have made sense to keep the link despite the move (but perhaps not so if 
the owner=... tag had changed...)

For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the 
change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs 
are not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

John Smith wrote:
> Also it doesn't cover a new thought I had on the subject, being able
> to assign unique IDs in the field without needing to connect to the
> main OSM DB to get a new ID, this might be useful in emergency
> situations where you need to tag a lot of things in tandem with a
> group in very short order and being able to easily share and modify
> that information with only LAN connectivity.

Sounds like a rather hypothetical situation to me but if I ever found 
myself in such a situation I would simply assign a block of negative IDs 
to every participant and have them use these. Just like in an .osc 
document really.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 18:26, John Smith  wrote:
>> I like Tim's Query-to-map [1] which accomplishes this task already and
>> doesn't rely on any extra tagging, by combining bbox+[ref|name] -- tags that
>> don't vanish as fast as some mysterious uuid tag.
>
> There is a lot of ID tags in the database and they seem to be a lot
> more stable than OSM IDs.
>
> It might do so, but it's horribly inefficient as a result of needing
> to do searches across areas, and can't cope with an occupant such as a
> business moving across town without an even more inefficient brute
> force search which may not work if the tags fix the name due to
> spelling mistakes etc etc etc.
>

Also it doesn't cover a new thought I had on the subject, being able
to assign unique IDs in the field without needing to connect to the
main OSM DB to get a new ID, this might be useful in emergency
situations where you need to tag a lot of things in tandem with a
group in very short order and being able to easily share and modify
that information with only LAN connectivity.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[John Smith]

On 7 June 2010 17:58, Peter Körner  wrote:
> I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either - they are
> subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they don't
> know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they create polys
> for them.

The proposal covers those situations by tracking deleted UUIDs and
duplicated UUIDs, with your logic we should ban all the editors
because they can create duplicate nodes.

> About explicit editor support: I disapprove proposals that won't work
> without explicit editor support (eg. because they are too complex to handle
> in a manual fashion).

Most of the semi-complex to complex features never had editor support
at one stage but if this proposal is deemed suitable by enough people
the editors will figure out some new snazzy way to incorporate support
to varying degrees, just like support for relations has improved over
time as people found them increasingly useful for various things.

> Doing sth. automatically in osm is always a bad idea, especially if the
> thing you're trying to do is still in a proposal state -- so please do not
> run it agaianst the main api as long as it's not approved by a wide-enough
> audience.

I think you have misunderstood or at least not comprehended the
potential for being able to easily share the same ID with other
databases without needing to do special or complex bbox searches like
you suggest. At no stage didn't I ever suggest that any script should
simply mass tag nodes with UUIDs, these should only be generated if
there is an actual need for them.

> I like Tim's Query-to-map [1] which accomplishes this task already and
> doesn't rely on any extra tagging, by combining bbox+[ref|name] -- tags that
> don't vanish as fast as some mysterious uuid tag.

There is a lot of ID tags in the database and they seem to be a lot
more stable than OSM IDs.

It might do so, but it's horribly inefficient as a result of needing
to do searches across areas, and can't cope with an occupant such as a
business moving across town without an even more inefficient brute
force search which may not work if the tags fix the name due to
spelling mistakes etc etc etc.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

[Peter Körner]

John Smith schrieb:
 > Currently I've been making a proposal for OSM to adopt an UUID tagging
 > scheme so that third parties wishing to directly refer to OSM objects
 > can do so without the current problems of using internal database
 > reference IDs vanishing in future.
I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either - they are 
subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they 
don't know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they 
create polys for them.

About explicit editor support: I disapprove proposals that won't work 
without explicit editor support (eg. because they are too complex to 
handle in a manual fashion).

 > So far I've been toying with some proof of concept stuff to establish
 > what works and what doesn't, so far I've coded some scripts to
 > generate and upload UUIDs automatically on OSM objects
Doing sth. automatically in osm is always a bad idea, especially if the 
thing you're trying to do is still in a proposal state -- so please do 
not run it agaianst the main api as long as it's not approved by a 
wide-enough audience.

I like Tim's Query-to-map [1] which accomplishes this task already and 
doesn't rely on any extra tagging, by combining bbox+[ref|name] -- tags 
that don't vanish as fast as some mysterious uuid tag.

Peter


[1] 

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