I have been using prow:ref, just because I came across it in the mailing lists. I have not added many (~60 prows) and I don't mind converting those over to prow_ref if that is the consensus.
My preference would be for prow:ref, as the colon is the 'standard' way to define namespaces, and I am not convinced that prow_ref is not just a namespaced tag. It is using the "prow_" prefix to distinguish the prow object from the way object. > 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't > actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* > name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"), to describe the local authority the references 'belong' to. > 2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that > "source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often > recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) I was just using source:ref, without really thinking about it. Taginfo has only 2 uses of source:prow:ref, which makes me feel better. There are examples of this pattern, in "source:hgv:national_network" (67 k) and "source:addr:postcode" (17 k). I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous about it? > 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, > route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather > than the alternative colon separated versions. This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or some other *:ref. Craig On 31 December 2012 22:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < [email protected]> wrote: > On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few > > hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of > prow:ref, > > I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have > > been the better option. > > Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for > prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons: > > 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't > actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* > name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. > > 2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that > "source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often > recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) > > 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, > route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather > than the alternative colon separated versions. > > Robert. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
