Merge problem: potential defect in merge logic

[Gubaer]

Creating a new ticket from a message in #4509, see also attached file.

Not qualifying as r-2010-01-blocker yet, needs analysis first.

---

Sorry for making so much work, but weekend is over and I am back again.

I think there is still a bug in merging. I have to older osm of the same region. I think the only thing I edit is deleting errors (overlaping way, doubled nodes). I do not find any id:0.

I merge this files and only get conflicts of nodes, but there exist ways in one osm that do not exist in the other one. I think there should be an conflict on but please tell me if I am wrong. Look for the round-about "Siegesdenkmal" and there at the low left. I also noticed that there is no conflict of a relation, but this way (42667459) still exists but lost its membership.

I merged the older file onto the new, but I think it also is not working right the other way round. May we have to open another ticket.

Cheers skyper

[mjulius]

Replying to Gubaer:

I merge this files and only get conflicts of nodes, but there exist ways in one osm that do not exist in the other one. I think there should be an conflict on but please tell me if I am wrong. Look for the round-about "Siegesdenkmal" and there at the low left.

Why should there be a conflict? When an object in the source dataset is not in the target dataset it is simply added. That is the point of merging.

I also noticed that there is no conflict of a relation, but this way (42667459) still exists but lost its membership.

Because relation 71504 has a newer version in newer.osm and therefore this version is kept.

[Gubaer]

Doesn't look like a "conflict" in the sense JOSM is using the term. See #4509 for a discussion on how "potential map anomalies" could be treated in the future.

Closing as invalid.