[OSM-dev] Note to the developers of editors :)

Stefan de Konink stefan at konink.de
Mon Apr 13 19:09:15 BST 2009


Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I don't think it should. The API makes no claim that a way is some 
> geometric object; a way is just a collection of nodes.

Like discussed on IRC yesterday /my/ opinion is clear; if there is or 
will be an enforcement on length because of 'client/server' interaction, 
check for actual corruption must be trivial too add, an the only thing 
useful for our data collection.

> If the API would start to do geometry inspection, then you'd have to add 
> loads of additional checks as well. For example for self-intersecting 
> areas or ways with length==0 even because first and last node, while 
> being different, have the same coordinates, and whatnot.

Lets check for it :) (I'm serious) I was even surprised we seem to go on 
PostgreSQL but don't go PostGIS.

>> As always OSM fixer is on rampage to filter about 6000 plus ways, 
>> leaving 4492 matches, of them 405 become one-way-ways. Relations 
>> haven't been found duplicate in this way.
> As long as you fix things that are obviously completely broken, like 
> ways referring to deleted nodes, that's fine. But if you venture into 
> the "this makes no sense to me so I'll fix it", it might be better to 
> discuss your ideas on this list *beforehand* rather than just tell us 
> afterwards what your bot is doing (or has done).

I have discussed this the previous night on IRC. And 'this makes no 
sense', did not come from me, but a few days ago from someone else. But 
please speak up if you know anything useful with sequential duplication 
for members. I cannot :)


More information about the dev mailing list