Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.

Change in API behavior: Higher level relations are not returned #2699

Closed
openstreetmap-trac opened this issue Jul 23, 2021 · 8 comments
Closed

Comments

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link

Reporter: sebastiank
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 3.18pm, Sunday, 7th February 2010]

For quite some time, the API did return network relations for a bounding box request. (I. e. parent relations of the relations that have members in the bounding box.)

This is no longer the case. It was speculated, that it has something to do with the change of the API from ruby to C++ in the beginning of February.

The problem is, that these network relations are now very hard to find. Because they are never returned for a bbox request, you have to guess or know a child relation and then go to the relation dialog -> parent relation tab and click reload (In JOSM). However most relations don't have any parent relations, so you are looking for needles in a haystack.

I am aware that the doc on the wiki does not guarantee to return parent relations, but it is a regression nonetheless and it would be very helpful if the old behavior could be restored.

The issue came up 2 times on talk-de:[[BR]]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-February/062456.html [[BR]]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-February/062713.html [[BR]]

I can provide examples if needed.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: TomH
[Added to the original trac issue at 4.03pm, Sunday, 7th February 2010]

Please do provide an example...

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: sebastiank
[Added to the original trac issue at 8.42pm, Sunday, 7th February 2010]

  • Download http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.09579&lon=13.38175&zoom=17 in JOSM
  • It will download relation 23258 ("Kreisfreie Stadt Greifswald") with a single member which is within the bounding box.
  • Open the relation in the relation dialog and go to the tab parent relation'', click ''reload
  • It will add the relation 22956 (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) to the dataset.

A view weeks ago, the relation 22956 was returned by the bbox request, already.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: amm
[Added to the original trac issue at 11.57pm, Monday, 8th February 2010]

Oh, my comment didn't seem to have made it... (forgot to save it)

The patch is probably still broken, definitely needs more testing, and is rather ugly. So I have only attached it for reference in case someones else gets the time to look at it.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: malenki
[Added to the original trac issue at 4.55pm, Tuesday, 6th April 2010]

Today I ran into this one. To make it short: After all I created three parent relations for the same issue but could see none after i downloaded a part of the ways afresh (working with josm). I discovered the parent relations by incident via osm => data => details.
The next problem depending on this bug is that relations which unknowingly are childs of an invisible parent relation can not be deleted.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: zere
[Added to the original trac issue at 2.03pm, Saturday, 1st May 2010]

(In [21049]) Added functionality to fetch meta-relations with cgimap. Should fix #2699, but needs performance testing.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: zere
[Added to the original trac issue at 6.27pm, Saturday, 1st May 2010]

(In [21059]) Better relations query for cgimap - this time actually fixes #2699 as far as i can tell.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: zere
[Added to the original trac issue at 11.46am, Sunday, 2nd May 2010]

(In [21062]) Fixed another bug - should have been pulling in unwayed nodes into the relation lookup too. Refs #2699.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: Matt
[Added to the original trac issue at 2.00pm, Sunday, 2nd May 2010]

Ran OsmMapCallValidator on the bbox (13, 54, 13.5, 54.5) and after 1000 checks there were no errors. I think it might be fixed, finally!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant