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

Handling of bounds in OSM file headers #243

Open
joto opened this issue Feb 22, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Handling of bounds in OSM file headers #243

joto opened this issue Feb 22, 2022 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement Wishlist item. feedback Maintainer wants feedback from users on this issue. funding needed Might need funding before work is done on this issue

Comments

@joto
Copy link
Member

joto commented Feb 22, 2022

I occasionally get complaints about Osmium handling the bounds (bounding box) header in OSM files in a wrong way. Mostly Osmium doesn't set it at all. There are several reasons for that:

  1. The semantics of the bounds header field is not defined anywhere. For instance when doing an extract, should the bounds header contain the values with which the extract was made, or the actual bounds of the result? If you use complete_ways for the extract, there might well be nodes outside the box used for extracting for instance.
  2. Because the bounds header is not defined, different programs might use it in different ways, so it is unclear what they need.
  3. The bounds header is at the front of the file. When we are writing the header we might not know yet what the bounds are because we only find out while going through the data. If we want to write an accurate bounds header, processing might be more expensive.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. Each Osmium command that writes OSM files has different requirements regarding the bounds. This will need some careful thought and time to find the best solutions(s).

@joto joto added enhancement Wishlist item. feedback Maintainer wants feedback from users on this issue. funding needed Might need funding before work is done on this issue labels Feb 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Wishlist item. feedback Maintainer wants feedback from users on this issue. funding needed Might need funding before work is done on this issue
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant