Hi, Matt Amos wrote: > this should no longer be the case. recent planets (i can't remember > exactly when it changed) should be dumped with full integrity, so any > examples of inconsistencies that you find in the planet should also be > in the database. if they're not that's a bug in the dump process i'd > like to know about, please. :-)
It seems Matt is right. - About half a year ago, someone claimed that the planet file was meanwhile done in a transaction and I checked it at the time and found the same inconsistencies as always, but in the current planet the highest defined node id is 739092179 and the highest referenced node id only 739091794 so at least it does not exhibit the same problem any more. > as for the inconsistencies in the database, some pre-date API 0.6 and, > although efforts were made to clean it up when we migrated we > obviously missed some. there were also some created since then, > presumably due to bugs in the API. Or software that did not use the API? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
