Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adjust polygons using deleted relations #2462

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 24, 2025
Merged

Adjust polygons using deleted relations #2462

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 24, 2025

Conversation

Famlam
Copy link
Collaborator

@Famlam Famlam commented Feb 23, 2025

germany_niedersachsen

On first glance, the difference seems to be that the original polygon only contained land area, while the new polygon contains the water areas too. Note however that there is overlap with part of NL in the border dispute area in the water... not sure if this has any side effects?

usa_georgia_southwest

For the other failing polygons... I often have no clue why they're failing

@frodrigo
Copy link
Member

germany_niedersachsen

With water is better.

Thank you.

For the other failing polygons... I often have no clue why they're failing

Do you think the polygon base may be corrupted ?

@frodrigo frodrigo merged commit b47c8d6 into dev Feb 24, 2025
4 of 6 checks passed
@Famlam Famlam deleted the famlam-poly branch February 24, 2025 17:34
@Famlam
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Famlam commented Feb 24, 2025

Do you think the polygon base may be corrupted ?

Not sure, I don't really know how to debug it well as I don't know what the polygon-backend does. I loaded a few polygon-forming-relations in JOSM and didn't see any obvious issues with those, they looked valid to me. But it may be the code behind it that generates something invalid (just like we initially had some difficulties with connected outers in multipolygons)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants