I was browsing OGF:Coastline_Maintenance earlier this morning and in the process found that relation 10071, for the Uletha coastline, had been deleted some two months prior. Has it been superseded by a newer relation (which I can’t find, if there is one)? If not, how to go about restoring it?
Leave a comment
Log in to leave a comment
Discussion
Comment from Luciano on 6 February 2016 at 13:20
I know that quite a while back, it was causing problems for Thilo for the coastline render. Since I thought I was the only one using it, at that time I told him that if he felt the need, that it was OK to delete it.
It would appear that, in fact, bhj867 deleted it. I’m not sure if that was by mistake or if he was working with Thilo or another admin trying to solve a coastline problem.
In any event, it was definitely somewhat useful but those kinds of objects are quite problematic for database maintenance.
If you need it, you may re-create it - it’s quite tedious and a lot of work. You can follow the model of the Archanta coastline relation (which I use quite a bit more since I do a lot of maintenance work on Commonia and other areas in Archanta).
Comment from skquinn on 6 February 2016 at 13:22
I didn’t need it, I just saw it was possibly deleted by mistake and wanted to find out what was going on. I know these types of relations are usually labeled with huge “DO NOT DELETE” comments so I figured something must have been going on.
Comment from Luciano on 6 February 2016 at 14:11
Ah OK - I thought maybe you were using it. Thanks for checking!
Comment from thilo on 6 February 2016 at 14:15
I don’t have anything to do with the deletion. In fact, until now I wasn’t even aware that it has been deleted.
Comment from Luciano on 6 February 2016 at 14:33
@Thilo - Well it must have been an accident. But, since no one noticed, it wasn’t being used much. It was by far the largest of the coastline relations, and it was really too big to use effectively. Perhaps if we re-create it, we could make several pieces (i.e. West Uletha, South Uletha, etc.). But I think we can see if we can do without it.