[OSM-talk] We're back

[Gregory Williams]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ed Loach
> Sent: 21 April 2009 14:28
> To: 'Richard Fairhurst'; talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] We're back
> 
> Richard wrote:
> > I know of two issues with Potlatch 0.11 at the moment. One is
> > relation
> > handling (actually I see Ed's just posted about that) - not
> > clear yet
> > whether this is Potlatch-specific.
> 
> JOSM showed the relation that the way was part of, but there seems
> to be a different relation issue affecting at least JOSM recently
> mentioned on dev where amending one relation tag key's value updated
> all the relation keys to have the same value, though are still
> correct in history.
> 
> http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/115694
> http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/115694/history
> 
> Although looking at the history it only lists the tags for the first
> changeset and not the later ones. I'm assuming that isn't by design
> either.

Almost. The tag values shown in the non-history version of the call are
only from the first version, which was what I was attempting to fix the
value for (I meant to type National cycle Network National Route 43, not
...4).

I've shown that the issue also happens with JOSM 1529 (the one currently
considered stable). I suspect that it's API rather than JOSM related and
am currently scanning the Ruby code (and attempting to learn Ruby at the
same time...). Can't find where tag.save is implemented at the moment
though...

Gregory