Copied this from #8, which had turned into a discussion about the file name:
Why are you using the <osm> tag at the top of the tree? Wouldn't it make more sense to have use <osm-notes> or whatever? And give it its own versioning space so that we don't have to change the version for other OSM files if we change the notes file format? Using <osm> would make sense if we ever want to have one file with normal OSM data in it and notes at the same time, which might be useful. But don't we have to upgrade the version number then because people who have written OSM file parsers don't understand the <note> tag?
Copied this from #8, which had turned into a discussion about the file name:
Why are you using the
<osm>tag at the top of the tree? Wouldn't it make more sense to have use<osm-notes>or whatever? And give it its own versioning space so that we don't have to change the version for other OSM files if we change the notes file format? Using<osm>would make sense if we ever want to have one file with normal OSM data in it and notes at the same time, which might be useful. But don't we have to upgrade the version number then because people who have written OSM file parsers don't understand the<note>tag?