[OSM-dev] 0.6 API clarifications and corrections

bvh bvh-osm at irule.be
Thu May 15 12:35:11 BST 2008

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 02:20:42PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If you wanted "raw" access, then you can have it - just download the 
> history of every object. You can do that even now.
> Changesets are introduced to lessen the complexity. We want "one big 
> edit", ideally associated with a comment where the user says what he 
> meant to achieve with this edit.
> The very reason for having changesets is to do some grouping and 
> filtering on the server side, instead of having to let the client do 
> everything (and incur a lot of server load and traffic along the way).

I thought the reason for changesets was to have some grouping
so we could do rollback. I was not aware this is also a server
load issue. And frankly if this is about server load then there
are better ways to mitigate that like rewriting the map call as
a C/C++ apache module...

> And not: "During changeset 123, the user first idled for 10 minutes, 
> then moved node A a bit further north, five minutes later moved it back 
> south, then decided to add a tag; subsequently deleted the whole node 
> and repeated the procedure with a new one...". This is completely 
> unnecessary and only confusing for any clients who want to work with the 
> changeset data.

Mm. I have a difficult time picturing the difficulty for the
client. On the contrary my hunch feeling is that rollback is going
to be easier, more flexible and more robust if the changeset is not 
mangled but is presented as small piecewise changes. 

cu bart

More information about the dev mailing list