On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> It's a known problem with a fix on the way with 0.6. >>> Is this already checked that it will be fixed using 0.6? Since currently >>> the API doesn't seem to be the problem, the lacking referential >>> constraints inside the database, and resulting database export is. >> >> Not sure if you're just being obtuse or you really don't know what >> we're talking about, but when we say "API 0.6" we mean new version of >> the XML API + new version of the Rails code + new version of db >> structure (yes, including foreign keys etc) that all go hand in hand. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/0.6#Related_database_improvements > > I cannot get from that page that you are adding these things
yeah, the wiki page could probably do with some updating. but you remember this thread last month, right? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/014024.html the issue with things referencing deleted items should go away because the transactions wrap the used-by checks. > Never the less, I asked Dave if he checked in the MySQL database if the > presented violators are in there or if this is a hypercube issue. I > would like to have a reply to that, because then it might be an issue > that should be addressed by more people. looks like it might be a planet generation issue. maybe take a look at the history for some of the items which are causing you problems? cheers, matt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
