[OSM-talk] CanVec:CODE vs. CanVec:UUID -relevancy

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 15:40 -0700, Sam Vekemans wrote:
[ ... a lot of stuff ... ]
> The 5th, which is currently being debated
> canvec:CODE=1200020
> - This is the [CanVec] feature identifier, [analogy removed].
> 
> So does anyone have objections to the logic and usefulness of
> canvec:CODE?  Or any arguments for/against what I wrote above?..  And
> at the same time I'm recommending for all imports that this gets added
> (if it is available). [edits for readability]

Sure, I object, Sam.  :-)  canvec:CODE only helps by making it easier
for somebody to go back to the CanVec data.  Ideally we want the data to
"just work" in OSM so that an external reference is rarely required.  

Object that you selected for your example is instructive and I see why
you are tempted to explain it further.  Let's have a look at a CanVec
1200020 object.  According to the wiki page[1] that you wrote based on
the CanVec docs, 1200020 is a cartographic spot height.  

Here's one from a sample area in southern Ontario

<node id="-25" lat="43.42109989905811" lon="-80.4427889">
<tag k="attribution" v="Natural Resources Canada"/>
<tag k="source" v="CanVec_Import_2009"/>
<tag k="created_by" v="canvec2osm"/>
<tag k="canvec:CODE" v="1200020"/>
<tag k="canvec:UUID" v="7c362dc87f31468193377634d3cdc78c"/>
<tag k="name" v="325"/>
<tag k="ele" v="325"/>
</node>

A "name" tag here is inappropriate.  The name of this survey point is
not "325", "325" is the elevation.

Use man_made=survey_point[2].  That will be in step with accepted OSM
usage, _and_ adds the context that helps OSM'ers decide how to use the
data.  

Best regards,
Richard


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Relief_and_landforms_(FO)
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point