[OSM-dev] What should the changeset api do?

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Sun Oct 12 00:14:16 BST 2008

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Shaun McDonald
<shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk> wrote:
> Should the changeset be shown if the user is anonymous?

yep, i think so. but the user and userid attributes shouldn't be shown.

> On 11 Oct 2008, at 15:57, Matt Amos wrote:
>> using tile codes is an interesting idea - it means that a changeset
>> containing small edits in alaska and australia wouldn't need to cover
>> the whole world. however, finding the all the tile codes of a way
>> means inspecting the tags to find out if its an area...
> Do we deal with areas properly anyway? If you download a bbox and a way
> crosses the corner of it, with now node inside it, then it isn't downloaded.
> Should this be any different? Maybe we need to re-introduce that area type?

well, changesets would - they'd bound all of the nodes, so a point in
the centre of an area would hit the bounding box, but it might not hit
all the tile codes of the circular ways. its not a massive problem,
but we should be aware of all the pros and cons.

>> the previous version number appears in the history, though, so it is
>> possible to get this information with a single api call - no
>> deductions are necessary :-)
> That would require getting the history for every item in the changeset,
> which I thought is what we are trying to avoid.

yeah, maybe its worth having a previous_version column in
current_(nodes|ways|relations) for efficient lookup?



More information about the dev mailing list