Am 07.05.2013 09:58, schrieb Stefan Keller: > Hi, > > You wrote: >> - it's roughly in that bounding box (e.g. the city or a given part of > > A soon as you use the word "roughly" - the id approach is doomed to fail. > According to OO and database technology an id is a well-defined > surrogate with a well-defined data type.
Then it's not the same "permanent" we talk about. Look what happens in OSM all the time: POIs are moved slightly to match aerial images - following your definition that should be another ID now - but that's not what people usually want if they request for a permanent ID, similar to changes from node to polygon to multipolyogn etc. "It's in that bounding box" nevertheless would have been the better wording, (equalling "is roughly at that position, so if you want to use roughly/estimation, it's possible even then). regards Peter _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
