<p>Yup, it is intentional behaviour. Whether it's still the best behaviour is a good question. Since the code now keeps a running count of the number of changes within the changeset itself: <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/b5ff4bfbe658fc21f2cf038809fd696d92b1f8f7/app/models/changeset.rb#L142-L148">https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/b5ff4bfbe658fc21f2cf038809fd696d92b1f8f7/app/models/changeset.rb#L142-L148</a> then this behaviour is simply confusing.</p>
<p>It looks like we would get more predictable behaviour just by leaving the <code>EXPAND</code> parameter out and allowing <code>margin</code> to default to zero, although there'd probably need to be adjustments to the test suite. <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/b5ff4bfbe658fc21f2cf038809fd696d92b1f8f7/lib/bounding_box.rb#L35">https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/b5ff4bfbe658fc21f2cf038809fd696d92b1f8f7/lib/bounding_box.rb#L35</a></p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1742#issuecomment-364919729">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWnLcxsFda2qhg9SdnnbWJromcI9OYyks5tUDoIgaJpZM4SB-SR">mute the thread</a>.<img alt="" height="1" src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABWnLamegxbIybyPuVfpaypsxL-LISkYks5tUDoIgaJpZM4SB-SR.gif" width="1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop="action" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ViewAction">
  <link itemprop="url" href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1742#issuecomment-364919729"></link>
  <meta itemprop="name" content="View Issue"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop="description" content="View this Issue on GitHub"></meta>
</div>

<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","title":"openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@zerebubuth in #1742: Yup, it is intentional behaviour. Whether it's still the best behaviour is a good question. Since the code now keeps a running count of the number of changes within the changeset itself: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/b5ff4bfbe658fc21f2cf038809fd696d92b1f8f7/app/models/changeset.rb#L142-L148 then this behaviour is simply confusing.\r\n\r\nIt looks like we would get more predictable behaviour just by leaving the `EXPAND` parameter out and allowing `margin` to default to zero, although there'd probably need to be adjustments to the test suite. https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/b5ff4bfbe658fc21f2cf038809fd696d92b1f8f7/lib/bounding_box.rb#L35"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1742#issuecomment-364919729"}}}</script>