ref:lcc=* would probably be best, or even ref:lcc:bins=*. There is an
activity going on at present to get these external IDs documented to
some extent, in the context of IDs that are used for correlation during
data imports and subsequent maintenance. It would fit nicely in this
list:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Key_descriptions_with_status_%22import%22
Discussion can be read here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-March/084404.html
On 2020-03-26 11:48, Patrick Lake wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion Peter, I think ref is probably more appropriate
> then. I'm fairly new to this as well, so I'm trying to get as much feedback
> as possible.
>
> Patrick
>
> From: Peter Neale <[email protected]>
> Reply to: Peter Neale <[email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:40
> To: Jez Nicholson <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>, Patrick Lake <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps
>
> I commend your efforts, but can I suggest a small change to your proposal?
>
> (I am still a bit of a novice on OSM, so please feel free to tell me I am
> totally wrong)
>
> Rather than "lcc:id=1849" should you not use, "id=lcc1849", or perhaps
> "ref=lcc1849", or even "ref:lcc=1849".
>
> I am not sure which (if any) would be most correct, but I feel that what you
> are trying to record is a type of reference or identity, not a type of lcc.
>
> I also note that Taginfo shows 91,800 uses of "id=*", but over 10.3 million
> uses of "ref=*", so "ref =nnn"would seem by far the most popular tag for a
> reference number.
>
> Also, I do not see the need to "hide" the comment as "lcc:comments="; why not
> just use "note=under city centre team management"?
>
> As I said, please feel free to tell me I am wrong; I am engaging here as part
> of my education in OSM.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> On Thursday, 26 March 2020, 10:12:56 GMT, Patrick Lake
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jez,
>
> I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source
> of data in the future, but whether they'll use it for essential stuff like
> planning collection routes I don't know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be
> relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we're doing for
> LCC involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and
> where the optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points
> would be. So we're keen for it to be accurate.
>
> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be
> meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here's the rest of the tags we
> planned to use with examples from the data we're importing (obviously we can
> change these):
>
> amenity=waste_basket
>
> * waste_basket:model="metal square twin"
> * condition=good/fair/poor
> * waste_basket:defects=loose
> * waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
> * lcc:id=1849
> * lcc:comments="under city centre team management"
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patrick
>
> o/talk-gb [1]
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
