On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:18 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 23:12, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> 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 <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>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
