[Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Dan S]

For me, the convincing argument is not ease of querying; the
convincing argument is essentially namespacing. "uprn" and "usrn" are
rather generic initialisms, and I don't see any useful reason for our
uk/gb project to claim the "meaning" of ref:uprn or ref:usrn within
OSM's tag namespace.

I notice that "ref:usrn" has been used a lot - but in fact primarily
it came three years ago during a tree import in Birmingham. So even
though it's been used a lot, it's largely confined to one user/project
and I wouldn't consider it widespread.

Best
Dan


Op za 11 apr. 2020 om 02:06 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
<talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>:
>
> Why country codes? OSM is geospatially aware.
>
> On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> > <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM <tonyosm9 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging.
> >>> Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data?
> >>> What should they be?
> > [snip]
> >> So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
> >> ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?
> > Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of
> > course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn
> > and ref:GB:usrn .
> >
> > Robert.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb