[OSM-dev] way 7062297, is this new?

[Stefan de Konink]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Andy Allan schreef:
> I'd suggest that you calm down a bit. This behaviour is fully
> supported by the API, so your assumption that {wayid,key} can be made
> a primary key is the problem. 

I had a nice dream about walking corpses in a theme park, so you can be
sure I am relaxed now ;)


> And stop reflexively blaming Potlatch, it's not cool to do so.

It was the only edit in the Dutch data set that had this issue.


Frederik Ramm schreef:
> Writing to a foundation member about anything that concerns OSM
> operations is just plain stupid because the foundation has no say in
> things like protocol and data model.

I was informed that the Foundation took care of issues that could be a
concern for OSM. I think this technical issue is a concern that can
degrade the value of edits in OSM, using an less restrictive editor.

> But it is not
> something that requires immediate action.

If 0.6 is not supporting it, it should not be possible to enter the data
today. (imho)

Richard Fairhurst schreef:
> Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
>> Then disable *ANY* edits with this borked editor: "Potlatch 0.10c" and
>> revert back to a version that did not produce duplicates.
>
> Er, hate to rain on your parade, but if you'd actually have taken
> 0.00001us to look, you'd see that Potlatch 0.10c has already been
> superseded.
>

Can I conclude that regression testing is something that should be
implemented for any editor? Or do you place the blame yourself at the
API that allows this, while any other editor will drop this?

> Incidentally, we're all volunteers, "please" and "thank you" and "I
> beg from the depths of my heart" work a lot better than "I *DEMAND*
> you do *THIS* or I will *SHOOT* you oh and I'm telling *TEACHER* about
> you".

Yes, and spending two hours of time to find out that some editor is
doing things that nothing has done before is a volunteer frustration.
(Writing email at 3am is too).



I think we should fix this issues where there is so added value of
duplication soon. I'm happy to do it manually using one of my parsers,
does anyone has serious objections against it?


Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEAREKAAYFAkjuB6sACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3mDwCeNnBibRf1K1JI5gXnmK/nQw0Q
0hkAn32TTiPpa3GPvHRIu17hJATRKviw
=F+ZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----