[OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Yves]

Le 10 janvier 2023 08:12:43 GMT+01:00, Snusmumriken <snusmumriken.mapper at runbox.com> a écrit :
>On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +0000, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to
>> > > ids
>> > > will cause social pressure not to change ids,
>> > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim?
>> 
>> There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people
>> "resurrect" 
>> old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" such
>> as 
>> never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other 
>> feature.  There have also been complaints about changes to objects
>> that 
>> people consider "special" such as
>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 
>> and, er,
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 .
>
>Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining existing
>osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. Any
>proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the bad
>practice?
>
No, adding such a URI scheme wouldn't change at all the way contributors contribute.

However it would further degrade the impact of the "bad practice". 

I put "bad practice" between quotes because if it is considered good practice to try to keep IDs when editing because it's easier to retrieve history when trying to understand each other edits, it's not mandatory. 

Yves