On 10/17/2012 07:43 AM, Paweł Paprota wrote:
I agree. I will add changeset comments to changeset descriptions on the
demo instance and let's see how this turns out.
I said that but then I remembered that changeset metadata is not
available in the replication feed - only through public API or
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 00:28 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 17/10/12 00:04, Alex Barth wrote:
- Are there technical reasons why changesets should tend to be
large? Are they expensive on some level?
I believe it's entirely because we've got so many people doing
mechanical or semi-mechanical
On 17 October 2012 13:53, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
getting to the point: this might to some extent mitigate the large
changesets issue, as it would allow bboxes to be collected at a smaller
granularity. however, it wouldn't be a full solution and we'd probably
still need
On 10/17/2012 03:30 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
Basically, I see no need to worry about the extent of bounding boxes,
and no need to move to having bboxes on uploads instead of changesets
or other complications. No matter what we do, if your interest in a
changeset extends beyond the details of its
On 17/10/12 17:20, Alex Barth wrote:
Matt Amos wrote:
from this, we get a single changeset/#id/upload
call which applies atomically.
Is that so? I thought changesets were not applied atomically leading to issues
where it is hard to find out what data got applied when a connection breaks
On 10/17/2012 06:20 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
It seems that OWL and Activity Streams have the exact same problem here...
I have been talking with Matt today on IRC and to me it looks like we
have been asking ourselves the same questions and overall I think that
replacing a big chunk of the
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Why are so many changeset so large?
BTW, I did some cursory digging in the changesets dump and found that
actually only a relatively small percentage of changesets are
geographically large. Trying to use the history tab
On 17.10.2012 09:15, Jochen Topf wrote:
I think one reason people add bad changeset comments and organize their
changesets in a bad way is that for most people those changesets and the
comments just disappear into a black hole.
One thing that is also bad in my point of view ist that you can't
I really like how activity streams shows easy-to-understand changes on the map
using changemonger [1,2]. At the same time it creates an alternative break down
of changes that is more granular than changesets. This diverts attention from
_comments on changesets_. This is not ideal in my mind -
On 17/10/12 00:04, Alex Barth wrote:
- What are the recommendations for change set sizes?
Personally I tend to put everything that is logically grouped together
in one changeset where possible.
But by that I mean that I'll spend a few hours out collecting data in a
small area and then
Hi Alex,
What do you mean by large? Do you mean changesets that span a large
area (spanning whole continents)? Or changesets that have a lot of
objects modified (perhaps more than 1000)?
Based on the examples you provided, it seems you mean the former. Is
this correct?
Eugene
On Wed, Oct 17,
Eugene - right, I mean changesets that are geographically large.
On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
What do you mean by large? Do you mean changesets that span a large
area (spanning whole continents)? Or changesets that have a lot of
On 10/17/2012 01:04 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
I really like how activity streams shows easy-to-understand changes
on the map using changemonger [1,2]. At the same time it creates an
alternative break down of changes that is more granular than
changesets.
This diverts attention from _comments on
On 10/17/2012 01:04 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
- http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13514072
wheelmap_visitor is sort of a bot, it uploads changes made
to the wheelchair=* accessibility tags by anonymous users
on http://wheelmap.org/
It only touches that one tag. It generates a new
14 matches
Mail list logo
