I rely on the ordering too.

This is a prerequisite to provide readable patches to boundaries.osm, see:

The other prerequisite is to keep stable ids. I have a working patch in
#14833 but not yet submitted as I must test it extensively before changing
this crucial part of JOSM.

2017-08-08 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jochen Topf <joc...@remote.org>:

> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:51:36AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> > And another data point: the implementation in Vespucci does not sort by
> > id (not only in theory, the output is really not ordered, which doesn't
> > cause issues with JOSM).
> >
> > Or put differently: if that becomes a requirement, it would be a good
> > idea to versionize the format (which naturally wouldn't actually solve
> > your issue).
> For me the files ceated by JOSM are important, not what JOSM reads.
> Having JOSM create something that is stricter than what it can read is
> perfectly backwards compatible. But I'd encourage you to also use the
> same kind of ordering in Vespucci, see my other mail for reasons.
> Not sure versioning would help us here. What would help is some kind of
> flag in the header of the file that tells us if the file is ordered and
> in what way. Than any software can directly see whether it can work with
> the file and, possibly, which algorithm to use.
> Jochen
> --
> Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/
> +49-351-31778688

Reply via email to