Current pull requests Dec 2022

[mpadge]

@jmaspons Can you please use this issue to briefly describe for each of your current pull requests:

• The general aim
• The order in which it should be merged - that is especially important!
• Any relationships/overlap with other PRs

Current PRs are: #285, #288, #289, #291.

Thanks!

---

TODO

• Optimize osmdata data frame #294
• Opq parameter to select a set of OSM types #295

Done

• Implement osmdata_data_frame supporting out meta; and adiff queries  #285
• Add the parameter out to opq to select the level of verbosity of the results #288
• Fix the logic of parameter checks for osmdata_*(doc = doc) #289
• Implement adiff queries in opq #291

[jmaspons]

This set of PR add some options from overpassQL that osmdata didn't cover and some people find interesting (#179, #259, #269, and perhaps #252):

• Change the level of verbosity of the results by modifying the out statement (Add the parameter out to opq to select the level of verbosity of the results #288)
• Ask for augmented differences (Implement adiff queries in opq #291)

As some of the new results from the above options doesn't fit into spatial objects from sf et al., I want to implement a new function called osmdata_data_frame to get the results into a data.frame (#285). This is relevant for queries with out tags;, where no geometries are returned, or for adiff results which are not supported by the current osmdata_* functions.

As for #289 , it just a bug fix and tests to prevent them.

The order of the PRs doesn't matter. I would start by adding #285 which can be tested with xml files, and then add the extra options for opq which can use the osmdata_data_frame from the former PR to test the results. I've tried to split the PR in a logical and non overlapping way, but... let's see if or how the conflicts among branches appear 🤞 Hopefully the exhaustive tests will catch any drawback.

I'm not aware of any overlap with any open PR.

All in all, these PRs can be useful to inspect and correct the tags from OSM objects, to monitor changes and to help to localize name:* (eg. adding name:ca).

[jmaspons]

I have integrated all the branches successfully at my dev branch. So far, so good. I can make an all-in-one PR if you prefer so.

[mpadge]

No, thanks for the offer, but i think leaving them in smaller chunks will make the process easier to understand and manage. I'll merge as much as i can tomorrow. Thanks