8
Why might a footpath only be partially showing up on OSM Standard but fully show up on CyclOSM, Transport Map and others? (aussie.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/osm@feddit.uk
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Here's the location I'm talking about.

Screenshot in OSM Standard:

Screenshot in CyclOSM:

From what I can tell, the missing section was added 6 days ago in changeset 173999775. But weirdly, some of the parts that are showing up (basically, everything west of the missing part) were also added in that same changeset, so it's not a matter of the map not being updated with the latest data.

Does anyone have any idea what could be causing this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

Ok even weirder... clicking that link after I created the post...it does display fully when I open it Incognito, but not in my main logged in browsers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That would seem to suggest that your browser has cached the old version. Nothing to do with OSM.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The problem with that reasoning is that as far as I can tell, there should never be a version that looks how my browser is showing it. The whole line was added at once.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sometimes some tiles are taken from the cache, others downloaded new. Is there a tile boundary there?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not sure to be honest. And since it's fixed itself even in my logged-in version now, I have no way to check. I guess it probably was something like that, but it's particularly odd because I think some of those shorter paths crossing the road were also added in 173999775. So there may have been updated bits both left and right of the missing area.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I just looked at your post in greater detail: could it be consistent with https://tile.openstreetmap.org/19/485059/303581.png not having yet been updated, but surrounding tiles having been?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah that looks really close to correct. The next tile east would probably also have to be not updated, but that probably wouldn't conflict with any of the <1week old data.

    Really interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent