[OSM-talk] OSMXAPI question: is it me, or...

[80n]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Steven te Brinke
<s.tebrinke at student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> Taking a closer look at the data, there are some strange things indeed.
> However, these are not new, they are already in there several weeks.
> I retrieve all routes in the netherlands:
> relation[network=rcn][bbox=2.7984557419334006,50.62642256377723,7.388298070963748,53.954129036190224]
>
> Problems:
> - some relations are outside the bbox, for example relation 5881 (at least,
> as far as I can see, I didn't compute the bbox of the relation)

I think I know why that is.

> - quite some nodes are missing (they are referenced by ways that are
> returned)
> - a few ways do not contain any nodes, for example way 24828122, whereas the
> main api returns two nodes

This way is missing from one of the zappy instances, but present in
the others.  Looks like it may have lost synchronisation during the
recent NFS hiccups.  I'll pull it offline and re-sync it.

>
> For now I just ignore these, so it's no problem to me. But if you want more
> information on these problems, I can easily give a list of all nodes/ways
> with the last two problems.
>
> Steven
>
>
> Lambertus schreef:
>>
>> Thanks for the quick action. The amount of data downloaded by the query
>> was significantly more then before so that was already promising. Looking at
>> the data in JOSM showed no sign of crippled roads so that bug appears to be
>> squashed.
>>
>> However the bbox parameter still does not seem to do what I expect from it
>> (data returning from UK, NL, DE and BE instead of roughly a province in NL).
>> Reversing the parameters gives almost but not exactly the same result:
>>
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 lambertus lambertus 16519465 Sep 11 08:45 data.osm.4 (wget
>> http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/relation[network=rcn][bbox=5.5,52.0,6.3,52.3])
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 lambertus lambertus 16397318 Sep 11 09:14 data.osm.5 (wget
>> http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/relation[bbox=5.5,52.0,6.3,52.3][network=rcn])
>>
>> The one that was downloaded half an hour later is a bit smaller to my
>> surprise. I tried to find out what was the difference but visually there are
>> no changes to spot, but diff outputs so much that I don't know what to do
>> with it.
>>
>> 80n wrote:
>>>
>>> I've found a bug and fixed it.  Can you try again and let me know how it
>>> goes?
>>>
>>> 80n
>>>
>>>
>
>