Better test case is "node/1" (
2018-03-06 11:26 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>:
> 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.
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> talk mailing list
talk mailing list