[Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 10:31:55 UTC 2016
On 28/01/2016 8:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-01-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com
> <mailto:moltonel at gmail.com>>:
> You barely broach the subject of how MV and namespaces combine. For
> example if an object has multiple refs with sources, it should be
> clear wether an MV tag corresponds to "multiple sources for all the
> refs" or to "source for the 2nd ref". In suffix syntax, this could be
> distriinguished by "ref_1=x ref_2=y source_1:ref=a source_2:ref=b" vs
> "ref_1=x ref_2=y source:ref_1=a source:ref_2=b", even though this is
> becoming hairy.
Errr I would rather see
Keep the value the same from the first key to the delimited referrer =
makes it easier for all to recognise and sort.
> I believe we should restructure the way we use metadata aside with
> data in the particular tags source and maybe note and fixme (but not
> description). We are trying to convince people to add source tags on
> the changesets, but putting them on individual objects still has
> strong advocates, so we will likely have to live with it.
Some of my change sets have more than one source, I document to
discriminate the sources as well as I can. But it is a good deal clear
to me if I put it on the way/node/relationship.
> As an idea, the source information could become a subtag of another
> tag, i.e. rather than being attached to an object it would be attached
> to a tag (or to the position). This could also become more refined
> with several, optional formalized source tags, e.g. for the source
> date, a source link, a source license(?), etc.
name:source= ? Rather than source:name=... humm That would make people
think about the source being part of some characteristic of the object.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging