[OSM-talk] User umehlig and some really nasty edits

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 21:11:56 GMT 2008


If the server were to provide the original timestamp as an additional
attribute, and reject if it didn't match on upload, then problems like this
could be prevented.

It would also be a proper solution to update conflicts.

80n


On Feb 6, 2008 6:05 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) <
blackadderajr at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Dave Stubbs wrote:
> >Sent: 06 February 2008 5:58 PM
> >To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: [OSM-talk] User umehlig and some really nasty edits
> >
> >I don't know who/what they are, but there are a large number of low
> >number nodes that have been utterly destroyed. Basically 522-603 and a
> >few others in the 1000's have been moved halfway round the planet.
> >
> >I fixed node 1205, but it's going to be making a mess of the mapnik map.
> >Is there an easy way to find these and revert them?
> >
> >And can we make the server reject edits which move nodes further than
> >a certain distance?
>
> This sounds like the problem we had before with a user changing the
> negative
> ID numbers for uncreated items in JOSM, or perhaps creating their own
> manual
> data and not using negative ID's. Removing the negative of course changes
> the item entirely.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >talk mailing list
> >talk at openstreetmap.org
> >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080206/566c92c5/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list