80n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Sent: 06 February 2008 9:12 PM >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder) >Cc: Dave Stubbs; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] User umehlig and some really nasty edits > >If the server were to provide the original timestamp as an additional >attribute, and reject if it didn't match on upload, then problems like this >could be prevented. > >It would also be a proper solution to update conflicts. > >80n >
That sounds like a very logical and elegant solution. Cheers Andy > > >On Feb 6, 2008 6:05 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dave Stubbs wrote: > >Sent: 06 February 2008 5:58 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: [OSM-talk] User umehlig and some really nasty edits > > > > >I don't know who/what they are, but there are a large number of low > >number nodes that have been utterly destroyed. Basically 522-603 and >a > >few others in the 1000's have been moved halfway round the planet. > > > >I fixed node 1205, but it's going to be making a mess of the mapnik >map. > >Is there an easy way to find these and revert them? > > > >And can we make the server reject edits which move nodes further >than > >a certain distance? > > > This sounds like the problem we had before with a user changing the >negative > ID numbers for uncreated items in JOSM, or perhaps creating their own >manual > data and not using negative ID's. Removing the negative of course >changes > the item entirely. > > Cheers > > Andy > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >talk mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
