On Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:34:30 AM UTC-6, Toby Murray wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Russ Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh, and, could we convince r_coastlines to accept the license? I've > > put a LOT of work into fixing the coastlines (which were utter CRAP in > > the first place), and I'm unenthusiastic about having them > > lost. OSMInspector is reporting the wrong thing, by the way. Look at > > http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753612 and you'll see a bunch > > of nodes, only two supposedly touched by me. Yet if you click on any > > node, say > > http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=18666667 or > > http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=18666670 you'll see that I've > > touched them. > > When displaying a way, mapki.com only shows changes that affect the > way version. This includes node addition/removal but not moving > existing nodes. I brought this up with Ian on IRC and the way it > works, it really isn't practical to do deep node inspection as part of > the way history. > Indeed. This is a feature of the API as it stands: moving a node does not create a new way revision, only a new node revision. When viewing the history of a way, you won't also get the history of constituent nodes unless you ask for it one-by-one. I don't think the sysadmins would like me doing that :).
PS: The mapki.com history viewer is nothing more than a pretty view into the OSM API's history calls.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
