Karl Guggisberg wrote: > Hi Werner > > I'd say it's a JOSM *feature*, not a defect. JOSM correctly detects > that the server wasn't able to delete a relation because it was still > in use by some other relation. > >> Simple workaround: Remove 73724 first and 73723 with a second >> changeset. > That's how to do it. It isn't a workaround.
There is nothing wrong about deleting these two relations, why should it result in an error? We have already the rule to upload first all nodes, then all ways and then all relations. In a similar manner, JOSM should sort the relations in a way that keeps the server happy. __ Basti _______________________________________________ josm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
