Jon Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 15:58 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote:
>>> As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another
>> instance
>>> of nodes missing from the minutely diffs. This is a known issue but
>> I'm
>>> not sure if we have a trac ticket for it. I have put more detai
Tom Hughes wrote:
> Excuse me a minute while I find my magic wand...
>
> [ time passes ]
>
> ...found it! There you go, changeset processing is now
> 100 times faster.
>
>
Once you are done with your magic wand, do you mind lending it to me, I
have a server to optimize.
Emilie Laffray
sign
On 01/08/09 01:08, Andrew Ayre wrote:
>> How exactly is that supposed to help? Will this API have access to
>> some magic accelerator technology that the current API doesn't use?
>
> It would help because people could upload large data sets as fast as
> they can prepare them, then tweak any proble
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 15:58 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote:
> > As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another
> instance
> > of nodes missing from the minutely diffs. This is a known issue but
> I'm
> > not sure if we have a trac ticket for it. I have put more details
> into
> > the trac
Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 31/07/09 23:55, Andrew Ayre wrote:
>
>> I think if the OSM API was improved so it could accept large changesets
>> faster then that would greatly help out the people who are trying to add
>> large amounts of data. So far I haven't see a fast and reliable method.
>
> Excuse
On 31/07/09 23:55, Andrew Ayre wrote:
> I think if the OSM API was improved so it could accept large changesets
> faster then that would greatly help out the people who are trying to add
> large amounts of data. So far I haven't see a fast and reliable method.
Excuse me a minute while I find my m
Jon Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:36 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote:
>> Done. See:
>>
>>http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2118
>>
>> I add add tickets for the other two issues I referred to later today.
>> Thanks!
>
> As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another inst
Jon Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:36 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote:
>> Done. See:
>>
>>http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2118
>>
>> I add add tickets for the other two issues I referred to later today.
>> Thanks!
>
> As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another inst
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:36 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote:
> Done. See:
>
>http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2118
>
> I add add tickets for the other two issues I referred to later today.
> Thanks!
As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another instance
of nodes missing from th
Jon Burgess wrote:
> 2009/7/31 "Marc Schütz" :
>>> Wrong, osm2pgsql does process relations properly. If they aren't then
>>> Jon Burgess is happy to take a look to see if he can fix the problem
>>> with osm2pgsql. Second there has been no planet reload for a few weeks
>>> now.
>> There's definitely
> > The building called "Angewandte Informatik" is a multipolygon, which has
> been moved one and a half weeks ago. Both the old and the new shape are
> rendered now, and the hole is filled too.
> >
> > I know that there have been problems with multipolygons and diffs. Are
> they supposed to be fix
2009/7/31 "Marc Schütz" :
>> Wrong, osm2pgsql does process relations properly. If they aren't then
>> Jon Burgess is happy to take a look to see if he can fix the problem
>> with osm2pgsql. Second there has been no planet reload for a few weeks
>> now.
>
> There's definitely something wrong here:
>
> Wrong, osm2pgsql does process relations properly. If they aren't then
> Jon Burgess is happy to take a look to see if he can fix the problem
> with osm2pgsql. Second there has been no planet reload for a few weeks
> now.
There's definitely something wrong here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
On 31 Jul 2009, at 04:41, Karl Newman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Andrew Ayre
wrote:
Take a look at this boundary where a forest and national park meet:
http://osm.org/go/TwUljNo--
Notice that the boundaries don't line up. This is because the national
park is in slightly the
I don't know what the Osmarender update speed is or how to mark
tiles as
dirty or find out when they were rendered, so I am unsure if
Osmarender
tiles can be directly compared.
osmarender doesn't work currently for large areas defined by relation
boundaries
there is a lonly white tile
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Andrew Ayre wrote:
> Take a look at this boundary where a forest and national park meet:
>
> http://osm.org/go/TwUljNo--
>
> Notice that the boundaries don't line up. This is because the national
> park is in slightly the wrong place. The national park is this c
Take a look at this boundary where a forest and national park meet:
http://osm.org/go/TwUljNo--
Notice that the boundaries don't line up. This is because the national
park is in slightly the wrong place. The national park is this changeset
uploaded yesterday:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
17 matches
Mail list logo
