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

Stefan de Konink stefan at konink.de
Mon Apr 13 19:50:12 BST 2009

Matt Amos wrote:
> we already do checks for data corruption, unfortunately they're
> vulnerable to race conditions. 0.6 will fix that in 4 days ;-)

I can't wait ;)

>>> 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.
> i don't consider consecutive duplicate nodes to necessarily indicate
> corrupt data. its up to the client to interpret the user's intent -
> and if the user genuinely wanted consecutive duplicate nodes then
> thats fine by me.

True, but you are going to restrict k/v pairs ;) And that is a thing 
some users want too ;) [I don't think I ever needed it]

> i can't think of any use for consecutive duplicate nodes, *yet*. there
> might be people already using this for something, or we might find a
> use for it in the future. for the moment, i consider this to be a
> minor client UI bug which can be most easily fixed by the clients, not
> by the server.

I think it was you that was previously so smart on IRC about not 
overengineering your database types. This is exactly the same case, 
don't allow it unless someone actually has a use for it.


More information about the dev mailing list