On 28/01/2016, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-01-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com>: > >> You barely broach the subject of how MV and namespaces combine. For >> example if an object has multiple refs with sources, it should be >> clear wether an MV tag corresponds to "multiple sources for all the >> refs" or to "source for the 2nd ref". In suffix syntax, this could be >> distriinguished by "ref_1=x ref_2=y source_1:ref=a source_2:ref=b" vs >> "ref_1=x ref_2=y source:ref_1=a source:ref_2=b", even though this is >> becoming hairy. > > I believe we should restructure the way we use metadata aside with data in > the particular tags source and maybe note and fixme (but not description). > We are trying to convince people to add source tags on the changesets, but > putting them on individual objects still has strong advocates, so we will > likely have to live with it. As an idea, the source information could > become a subtag of another tag, i.e. rather than being attached to an > object it would be attached to a tag (or to the position). This could also > become more refined with several, optional formalized source tags, e.g. for > the source date, a source link, a source license(?), etc.
Fair point, but IMHO off-topic (not related to MVs). Replace ref/source with destination/lanes (or any other namespaced key that could use a MV at different levels of the namespace) in my earlyer mail if you don't like the idea of source tags on objects rather than changesets. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging