"Andy Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Christoph Böhme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > At the moment I am trying to figure out if bug reports reports can > > be stored directly in the osm database using standard nodes and > > tags. > > Please, please don't take or advocate this approach. The OSM core > tables should, ideally, contain geo-data. We already anticipate much > of the meta-data (e.g. created_by tags, usernames) to be applied to > changesets (which are in themselves natively metadata). There's been a > long and steady agreement that future bug tracking systems won't just > slap nodes into the midst of our geotables.
I was not aware of this agreement. When I first started thinking about a bug tracker I intended to keep the bug reports in data structures separate from the osm database. But in the following discussions I got the feeling that a bug tracker which allowed free-form tagging would be very welcomed. But implementing this means basically replicating the node-objects (and the way-objects too if you want to mark buggy areas). So, I concluded it would be the easiest to just introduce a new set of tags and manage them differently in the clients. However, I can see why this is not a very clean solution and I am happy to implement in a different dataset. > However, this is another subject that needs more doing and less > talking :-) I am really eager to start programming something but at the moment I am still trying to figure out what exactly. I do not want to spend time writing a bug tracker that is then rejected because of the way it stores the bug reports. Christoph _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
