On Feb 10, 2008 1:08 PM, bvh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:10:14PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > This is beginning to get rather messy. TBH as a community not > > rendering the area in question is the only bargaining chip we have. Or > > slightly less extreme solution, drop the rendering of names. At the > > end of the day there's not much we can do against people who can't > > accept the fact that a place may have multiple names. > > I like the solution with the protected range > > - have the create node api check if the node is in a protected area, > if yes check the user and if allowed give the node an id in a reserved > range > > - have the create way/relationship api check if any of the member > nodes/ways > are from the reserved range and if so check the user and if allowed give > the way/relationship an id in a reserved range > > - have the edit/delete api check if the id in question is from the > reserved range and if so check the user > > Granted, I don't know ruby nor the api implementation but the > above seems doable to implement? >
Reserved Id ranges? Seems a little overkill. How about a protected bit on the node/way instead? > > > On a different note, if you setup a process that monitored the nodes > > in question and simply reverted any edits within five minutes of doing > > them (currently technically feasable) how long before people get tired > > of changing them? > > What would prevent those people from writing their own bot to execute > the changes? > > cu bart > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev > -- Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
