<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpd67ca34byahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div><div><span><div><br></div>
1. Nov 2018 16:30 by <a shape="rect" href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a>:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"></span><div><span><blockquote class="ydp847e66a4yiv7998324454tutanota_quote" style="border-left:1px solid #93A3B8;padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px;"><div><div><div><div>In both use cases, the
major purpose of the foreign key is to avoid manual review in the case
where OSM will not be updated. If an object (retrieved by key) is
unchanged since the last import, in both OSM and the external database,
then there is no work to be done.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></span></div><div><span><span><div><br>november 3 by Mateusz Konieczny <br></div></span></span><div><span><p><span><span></span></span>> Is there some reason why storing "object with id in database XYZ was uploaded as OSM object </p></span></div><span></span><span><p>> with id 717373737" should be stored in OSM?</p></span></div><span></span>There are imports with dozen of unnecessary tags in the OSM database and taginfo shows this plethore of tags. But Kevin arguments are convicing me that it is usefull to keep this id for later revision.</div><br><div class="ydpd67ca34bsignature"><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(0, 0, 191);font-weight:bold;"> <br><font face="garamond, new york, times, serif">Pierre </font><br></span></div></div>
<div><br></div></div></body></html>