{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mapbox/minjur/issues/11","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mapbox/minjur","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mapbox/minjur/issues/11/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mapbox/minjur/issues/11/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mapbox/minjur/issues/11/events","html_url":"https://github.com/mapbox/minjur/issues/11","id":133771834,"number":11,"title":"Handling object ids and attributes","user":{"login":"rclark","id":515424,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/515424?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark","html_url":"https://github.com/rclark","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":5,"created_at":"2016-02-15T17:22:33Z","updated_at":"2016-02-16T15:38:40Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Some other systems we use to build geojson from openstreetmap data end up presenting a geojson object like this:\r\n\r\n```json\r\n{\r\n  \"type\": \"Feature\",\r\n  \"id\": \"node!291496331!3\",\r\n  \"properties\": {\r\n    \"is_in\": \"ACT, Australia\",\r\n    \"name\": \"Theodore\",\r\n    \"place\": \"suburb\",\r\n    \"osm:type\": \"node\",\r\n    \"osm:id\": 291496331,\r\n    \"osm:version\": 3,\r\n    \"osm:changeset\": 36291100,\r\n    \"osm:timestamp\": 1451605692000,\r\n    \"osm:uid\": 609921,\r\n    \"osm:user\": \"JStar73\"\r\n  },\r\n  \"geometry\": {\r\n    \"type\": \"Point\",\r\n    \"coordinates\": [\r\n      149.1215891,\r\n      -35.4494709\r\n    ]\r\n  }\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\n- top-level `id` is `type ! id ! version`\r\n- attributes are included in the properties object, prefixed with `osm:`\r\n\r\nCould this also become the default behavior for minjur, possibly with an option to set your own attribute prefix? More specifically my question is -- would this change be acceptable for qa-tiles?\r\n\r\ncc @joto @mikelmaron @MateoV @geohacker "},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mapbox/minjur/issues/comments/184735255","html_url":"https://github.com/mapbox/minjur/issues/11#issuecomment-184735255","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mapbox/minjur/issues/11","id":184735255,"user":{"login":"rclark","id":515424,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/515424?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark","html_url":"https://github.com/rclark","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rclark/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-02-16T15:38:39Z","updated_at":"2016-02-16T15:38:39Z","body":"I'm generally inclined to maintain the geojson feature's `id` as a solid pointer to the openstreetmap object that it was built from. I understand the reasoning for the area construct, but to me that correlation is more important.\r\n\r\nObviously, the generation of a linestring and a polygon for a single openstreetmap object makes that a problem. I believe that all the same functionality discussed in #9 would also be desirable in the context of areas and multipolygons. We can continue that discussion over there."}}