[OSM-dev] disputed areas

Gervase Markham gerv-gmane at gerv.net
Thu Feb 14 07:53:39 GMT 2008

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> I think that Gerv's proposed technical solution of adding a boolean
> locked field to nodes which we update when we change the bounding boxes
> works for anything as a first stab. It can be improved or replaced
> later, with certain users having admin rights over certain BBOXes etc.
> The main thing is to handle this Cyprus case ASAP.

If it doesn't increase the size of the DB too much, it would be good to 
have a "locked integer" instead of a boolean. That way, we can in the 
future enable some accounts for a locked area and not others, by 
comparing the integer with a set of permission integers on their 
account. (So we can let the cooperative Cyprus guy edit Cyprus, without 
needing to give his account access to e.g. Taiwan).

This keeps the speed - for most cases, it'll just be a "is this value 
zero? Yes" check.

> Hopefully where a dispute is in progress we will often be able to mark
> both sides of the dispute, and not have an edit war. I suppose people
> from one side or the other might change the tagging, then we'll have to
> lock the ways.

Good point. It would be useful to be able to lock a particular couple of 
ways without surrounding the entire area in a locked bbox. I think 
that's possible with the above scheme.


More information about the dev mailing list