You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
Reporter: dan[at]karran.net [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 4.02pm, Thursday, 30th April 2009]
On the changesets page for a certain bounding box (e.g. [http://www.openstreetmap.org/history?bbox=-4.874%2C54.031%2C-4.158%2C54.338 here]), changesets are listed (e.g. [http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/602388 602388]) that do not appear to include changes within the specified area. It's just included because the boxes cross.
If somebody is interested in changesets that affect a certain area, they are likely only to be interested in ones that include actual changes in that area. It might be good to add a filter to that end, though I imagine it could add quite some complexity to the query, so I'm not sure how feasible it is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Author: grand.edgemaster[at]gmail.com [Added to the original trac issue at 2.23pm, Friday, 1st May 2009]
This has been discussed on the lists, and is currently believed to be a bit computationally difficult with what we have at the moment. It was suggested that this possibly be resolved by external services and if/when we look at adding bboxes per-element in the db.
Reporter: dan[at]karran.net
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 4.02pm, Thursday, 30th April 2009]
On the changesets page for a certain bounding box (e.g. [http://www.openstreetmap.org/history?bbox=-4.874%2C54.031%2C-4.158%2C54.338 here]), changesets are listed (e.g. [http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/602388 602388]) that do not appear to include changes within the specified area. It's just included because the boxes cross.
If somebody is interested in changesets that affect a certain area, they are likely only to be interested in ones that include actual changes in that area. It might be good to add a filter to that end, though I imagine it could add quite some complexity to the query, so I'm not sure how feasible it is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: