@Yves unfortunately would be hard to implement as reverting
reuses/undeletes the object if I'm not mistaken. So someone could just
undelete a node than move it to where they need to.
On Mar 6, 2018 5:47 AM, "Yves" <yve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Frederik,
> For my curiosity, is it a feature of the API to:
> _ allow users to choose an ID?
> _ not re-assign an old ID?
> Le 6 mars 2018 11:26:55 GMT+01:00, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> a
> écrit :
>> we're all concerned about the environment these days. "Reduce, Reuse,
>> Recycle" is certainly something to strive for in the real world out there.
>> However, for the second time now I've encountered a user who thought it
>> was a good idea to reclaim old node IDs for new edits. A couple of
>> long-deleted TIGER nodes were raised from the dead, and put to use in
>> mapping some new roads on the other side of the planet.
>> This sounds like a funny/quirky thing to do, and looks harmless enough
>> on the surface. But anyone who ever looks at the history of things
>> *will* be totally confused. Nobody who works with historic data will
>> expect that a U.S. bus stop could become a tree in Romania. People are
>> bound to interpret this in any number of wrong ways. It also messes up
>> my full history extracts, where you'll now find the occasional German
>> hiking route in the California data extract because a node that used to
>> be in California is now part of a path that belongs to the hiking route.
>> Long story short, please don't do it - let the API assign you new node
>> IDs to your stuff instead of building ingenious contraptions to recycle
>> old nodes.
> talk mailing list
talk mailing list