Hi Lester, Thanks - my fault. misread the section about 412, which refers to MEMBERS of the updated object, not to the object itself.
Sorry for the confusion! regards Peter Am 25.08.2013 12:37, schrieb Lester Caine: > (remember to check address!) > Peter Wendorff wrote: >>>> If so, then sorry for that - but is there any documentation about it? >>>> >>The API description in the wiki does not mention anything like >>>> that, so >>>> >>IMHO it's missing there, isn't it? >>> > >>> >They upload a new version of the object with the appropriate >>> properties. >>> >The more relevant call for uploading data is >>> >http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/API_v0.6#Diff_upload:_POST_.2Fapi.2F0.6.2Fchangeset >>> >>> >.2F.23id.2Fupload. >>> >I don't see anything that needs adding to the documentation. >>> > >>> > >> Sounds inconsistent nevertheless: updating a single object using PUT >> /api/0.6/[node|way|relation]/#id is not possible when referring to a >> deleted object, but updating the same object using diff is. >> >> If nobody complains, I'll add a hint to the section referring to the >> diff upload section, and a hint that diff uploads may be used for real >> reverts, too. > > At the end of the day, nothing is ACTUALLY deleted. Currently a copy is > retained in the changelog and that is simply used to 're-edit' changes > so that as has been said a new version is created matching the last but > one version. The API does not prevent using a 'deleted' node or way > number so all of the change log history can be retained. But this is > where maintaining historic records creates a problem. Only one copy of > an object is maintained in the main live data, so accessing a previous > 'view' say prior to a realignment of a road fails because it has the > same way number. Using start and end dates to select a particular view > is not supported ... > > This is where 'delete' is the wrong concept. Currently it just means > it's made invisible and there is no reason it can't simply be restored. > What should be happening is that there should be a mechanism to tag the > reason for the 'change of state' and changes that are due to historic > development need to be made available via a different route. Since the > start and end date tags already exist, managing these properly is long > overdue, but it's moving records that now have an end date to a view of > the database where that information can be used that is currently missing? > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
