On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Shaun McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should the changeset be shown if the user is anonymous?
yep, i think so. but the user and userid attributes shouldn't be shown. > On 11 Oct 2008, at 15:57, Matt Amos wrote: >> using tile codes is an interesting idea - it means that a changeset >> containing small edits in alaska and australia wouldn't need to cover >> the whole world. however, finding the all the tile codes of a way >> means inspecting the tags to find out if its an area... > > Do we deal with areas properly anyway? If you download a bbox and a way > crosses the corner of it, with now node inside it, then it isn't downloaded. > Should this be any different? Maybe we need to re-introduce that area type? well, changesets would - they'd bound all of the nodes, so a point in the centre of an area would hit the bounding box, but it might not hit all the tile codes of the circular ways. its not a massive problem, but we should be aware of all the pros and cons. >> the previous version number appears in the history, though, so it is >> possible to get this information with a single api call - no >> deductions are necessary :-) > > That would require getting the history for every item in the changeset, > which I thought is what we are trying to avoid. yeah, maybe its worth having a previous_version column in current_(nodes|ways|relations) for efficient lookup? cheers, matt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
