<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br /><br /><br />29. Oct 2018 11:34 by <a href="mailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">I *strongly* recommend including links (or IDs, that can be used in<br />links) to external databases. This is vital for two reasons: it<br />indicates the *precise* provenance of the sourced data</blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Why it is better than changeset tags? Why tags that may stay</p><p>after mapper edited building are preferable? <br /></p><p> </p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">; and it makes<br />OSM a better able to function as part of the web of linked-, open-,<br />data.<br /></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>It is not self-evident, that is why I asked for documenting how this tags are</p><p>planned me to be used,<br /></p><p> </p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote>Keeping a link to the source signals to the mapper "don't touch this,<br />it's official data" or "your edits can be overwritten by a future import".</blockquote><br />That may be your interpretation; it is most certainly not mine. Do you<br />have any evidence that anyone other than you interprets links in this<br />bizarre manner?</blockquote><p><br /></p><p>*raises hand*<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I am not sure why it is bizarre given that some people tried already</p><p>to run reimports destroying all edits by mappers.</p><p><br /></p> </body>
</html>