On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Jochen Topf <joc...@remote.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31:11AM +0100, mar...@gmx.eu wrote: >> > * Includes support for "visible" flag on OSM objects. This allows PBF to >> > handle OSM history files. >> >> Great! Thank you - and Jochen. >> >> Could you please, if possible, update the OSM Wiki page accordingly? >> Last time I needed to analyze an .osh.pbf file's contents byte by byte to >> see how the visible flag was stored. That was really fun for me, but not >> everyone likes this kind of riddle. ;-)
How much benefit do you get from reading the raw bytes this way, versus going through google protobuf? The decoding loop of osmconvert scares me a bit. The reason I chose protobuf was to *avoid* anyone, including myself, from having to implement their own serialization code. > > This information is in the .proto files. I have added the section of the proto > file that was missing to the wiki page. But I do agree that the documentation > is not as good as it could be. Still far better than many other parts of OSM. > :-) A binary format definitely needs to be documented very well, but I admit that my main documentation was for the decoder. I was following the philosophy that as long as the specification is sufficiently precise to fully specify interoperable decoders, the exact encoder implementation is an implementation detail. > > What I'd like to see at some point is a better distinction between the PBF > format itself and the reference (and other) implementations. > What kind of things were you thinking of? Also, if we're talking about PBF, do we want to open a conversation about OSM metadata, in both the PBF and XML formats? Scott _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
