[Talk-GB] Fwd: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Craig Loftus craigloftus+osm at googlemail.com
Tue Jan 1 16:36:53 GMT 2013


I have been using prow:ref, just because I came across it in the mailing
lists. I have not added many (~60 prows) and I don't mind converting those
over to prow_ref if that is the consensus.

My preference would be for prow:ref, as the colon is the 'standard' way to
define namespaces, and I am not convinced that prow_ref is not just a
namespaced tag. It is using the "prow_" prefix to distinguish the prow
object from the way object.

> 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
> actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
> name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.

Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example,
one additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or
"prow:authority"), to describe the local authority the references 'belong'
to.

> 2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that
> "source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often
> recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.)

I was just using source:ref, without really thinking about it. Taginfo has
only 2 uses of source:prow:ref, which makes me feel better. There are
examples of this pattern, in "source:hgv:national_network" (67 k) and
 "source:addr:postcode" (17 k).

I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous
about it?

> 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
> route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
> than the alternative colon separated versions.

This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or
some other *:ref.

Craig


On 31 December 2012 22:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> > Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
> > hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of
> prow:ref,
> > I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
> > been the better option.
>
> Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for
> prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons:
>
> 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
> actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
> name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.
>
> 2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that
> "source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often
> recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.)
>
> 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
> route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
> than the alternative colon separated versions.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130101/32b463cc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list