Talk:Node IDs: Difference between revisions
(unsigned) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Apparently www.opencaching.se redirects to www.opencaching.de at this time. {{unsigned|andrixnet}} | Apparently www.opencaching.se redirects to www.opencaching.de at this time. {{unsigned|andrixnet}} | ||
:@andrixnet: Why did you chose ID 16 for OC.ru? The answer to this question will show us what ID 15 is - unassigned or reserved for some site. --[[User:Following|following]] ([[User talk:Following|talk]]) 18:21, 31 May 2016 (CEST) | |||
== OCRO node id choice == | |||
=== I based my choice on the following information and logic: === | |||
opencaching-pl / settings-example.inc.php file contained (at that time): | |||
// Used OC number nodes and name of waypoints : | |||
// 1 Opencaching Germany http://www.opencaching.de OC | |||
// 2 Opencaching Poland http://www.opencaching.pl OP | |||
// 3 Opencaching Czech http://www.opencaching.cz OZ | |||
// 4 Local Development AA | |||
// 5 free | |||
// 6 Opencaching Great Britain http://www.opencaching.org.uk OK | |||
// 7 Opencaching Sweden http://www.opencaching.se OS =>OC Scandinavia | |||
// 8 free | |||
// 9 free | |||
// 10 Opencaching United States http://www.opencaching.us OU | |||
// 11 free | |||
// 12 Opencaching Russia http://www.opencaching.org.ru (I don't know current status???) | |||
// 14 Opencaching Nederland http://www.opencaching.nl OB => OC Benelux | |||
Since I had no other information at the time and yet I knew there were more nodes then listed there, I decided ''not to take for granted'' the IDs listed as free. To my knowledge, OCNL (14) was the latest addition, at least from opencaching-pl code point of view. At the time I also found nothing about an established procedure about assigning such numbers. The german opencaching forum wasn't very active either. Neither did I know about: | |||
"''Traditionally, NODE_IDs have been assigned by OCDE (Germany) management team.''" | |||
Thus I "tried to manage by myself" and decided to skip ID=15 to be on the safe side and chose 16. As it turns out, I was right (about 8,9,11). | |||
'''It then also became one of the reasons for which I advocated for the creation of this wiki.''' | |||
--[[User:Andrixnet|Andrixnet]] ([[User talk:Andrixnet|talk]]) 18:58, 16 June 2016 (CEST)andrixnet | |||
Latest revision as of 10:27, 17 June 2016
Apparently www.opencaching.se redirects to www.opencaching.de at this time. -- unsigned contribution by andrixnet (talk)
- @andrixnet: Why did you chose ID 16 for OC.ru? The answer to this question will show us what ID 15 is - unassigned or reserved for some site. --following (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2016 (CEST)
OCRO node id choice
I based my choice on the following information and logic:
opencaching-pl / settings-example.inc.php file contained (at that time):
// Used OC number nodes and name of waypoints : // 1 Opencaching Germany http://www.opencaching.de OC // 2 Opencaching Poland http://www.opencaching.pl OP // 3 Opencaching Czech http://www.opencaching.cz OZ // 4 Local Development AA // 5 free // 6 Opencaching Great Britain http://www.opencaching.org.uk OK // 7 Opencaching Sweden http://www.opencaching.se OS =>OC Scandinavia // 8 free // 9 free // 10 Opencaching United States http://www.opencaching.us OU // 11 free // 12 Opencaching Russia http://www.opencaching.org.ru (I don't know current status???) // 14 Opencaching Nederland http://www.opencaching.nl OB => OC Benelux
Since I had no other information at the time and yet I knew there were more nodes then listed there, I decided not to take for granted the IDs listed as free. To my knowledge, OCNL (14) was the latest addition, at least from opencaching-pl code point of view. At the time I also found nothing about an established procedure about assigning such numbers. The german opencaching forum wasn't very active either. Neither did I know about: "Traditionally, NODE_IDs have been assigned by OCDE (Germany) management team."
Thus I "tried to manage by myself" and decided to skip ID=15 to be on the safe side and chose 16. As it turns out, I was right (about 8,9,11).
It then also became one of the reasons for which I advocated for the creation of this wiki. --Andrixnet (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2016 (CEST)andrixnet