[OSM-talk] Id stability

[Kate Chapman]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kate Chapman wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand why having the ability to link to external
>> data through some sort of ID is such a bad thing.
>
> This is about external data linking to us, not vice versa.
>
>> This is common in
>> many APIs and datasets.   It is an opportunity to mix data in new ways
>> as well.
>
> That's why it ought to be done right, in a way that places no additional
> burden on our project. (And if you need proof that it isn't easy - even
> Navteq and TeleAtlas do not promise stability of their IDs, and indeed they
> change often.)

They don't promise you that they won't change, but I've worked on
applications that used their IDs as a helper between updates.  I'm not
saying we have to make sure all the IDs stay the same.  I just think
we shouldn't for example swap all of them.  If it isn't any extra work
at the moment to have 90% stability I don't think that is a bad thing.

If all the IDs have to be redone at some point I would hope a look-up
would be made at some point.  (I realize that someone could do this
without putting an additional burden on the community).
>
> For every mapper there are hundreds who want to use our data (and whereas
> the mapper never receives any money, many of our data users actually make
> money or save money by using our data). This means, to me, that if data
> users want to have it easier, want stable linking to OSM or whatever, they
> ought to shoulder the burden themselves rather than asking us to shoulder it
> for them IN ADDITION to what we are already doing.
>
> And, as I have explained, it would be a simple matter of programming (plus a
> little funds to run the service) to do this properly.
>
>> Why aquiesce to use tags at all, making
>> data more consistent just burdens *our* data with stuff other people
>> want to do with it.
>
> Like it or not, most of our mappers are in it for the map. That's why they
> use tags. If most of our mappers were in it for the general idea of a
> semantic web and a linked data store that encompasses the planet, things
> might look different.
>
>> I think being able to link between datasets can be beneficial.  Maybe
>> versioning on the API makes sense, maybe UUIDs, but I don't think the
>> linking is such a bad thing.
>
> My main point was that any additional burden caused for us by linking - be
> that a reuirement for constant IDs, the introduction of additional tags, or
> warnings that pop up when someone tries to make an otherwise normal edit -
> is hard to accept for me, and I'd prefer a third-party service that does all
> this without affecting us negatively. It's technically possible so if
> someone is really eager to have proper linking then why not just do it.

I'm not advocating for this either.  Many of the tools are difficult
enough for people to get started on.  Though this is certainly getting
better.

-Kate