3 ms·
Do you happen to know the OSM relation ID that was affected? The "New York City" relation [1] does not have anything related in its history [2] [1] https://www
by lqet 8y ago
Do you happen to know the OSM relation ID that was affected? The "New York City" relation [1] does not have anything related in its history [2]
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175905 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175905
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/175905/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/175905/histor...
- untog 8y agoI wouldn't be surprised if it was purged from the history. Otherwise might it imply that New York City was once given that name, historically?
- thinkingemote 8y agoOSM doesn't record historical changes of that kind (as in differentiating it from any other edit) and the nature of a change in that way. Although one might be able to infer actual geographical changes from comparisons. It just concerns itself with a snapshot of "now".
- rmc 8y agoNo, the bad edit in question is still there. OSM only "redacts" changes when there is a copyright problem. The licence was changed in Sept 2012, so there are lots of redactions from before then from people who didn't agree to the new licence. The OSM history of an object shouldn't really be seen as the historical status of the thing.
- rmc 8y agoLabels like that are often from place=city nodes. Here's the node in question. Compare v60 (the vandalism) with v61 (the repair) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/61785451 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/61785451