Undo Potlatch operation

In my eternal quest of improving aerodrome information, on OSM and elsewhere, I came across relation 9363244, describing a typical UK airstrip. It had only a single member, way 673702233; I thought this a needless complication. So I moved all relevant info from the “relation” to the way, then deleted the relation.
To my dismay, it seems that Potlatch removed not only the relation but also its members - only a single one, here.

  • is this normal behaviour for Potlatch 2? I’ll have to be more wary, then, henceforth
  • what can be done to correct things? I assume there should be a way to revert my changeset 88517604 , at least; but it would be neater if only way 673702233 could be undeleted.

I’ve done similar operations in Potlatch 2 but never experienced such a problem.
The fastest fix is to redraw the way once again.
But I am looking forward to a Potlatch 3 version with an Undo-feature.

I’ve reverted you changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88517604 . Shouldn’t the runway and hangars also be part of the relation?


Thank you very much - vielen Dank :slight_smile:
I have now redone the same operation in a more careful manner, all ok now (for me, at least).

Regarding your suggestion: it is not unthinkable to create an aerodrome as a relation, comprised of an area for the grounds, one or more runways and/or helipads, and optionally hangars, aprons, and what not. However the most usual way is to have the aerodrome grounds as the basic entry, where all the aeronautic info goes, too. Since all other elements are bounded inside this area, there is little added value in tying them together in a relation.

@Geofalke: I too cross my fingers for a Potlatch3, independent of Flash. I will be more than happy to assist, as a beta-tester and/or in writing documentation.

I’ve always interpreted “delete” there as "delete the logical entity that the relation represents (i.e. including all ways only in that relation). If you want to manipulate relationship membership, there’s a separate tab in P2 to do that - if you remove the last member from the relation it’ll delete it, I believe.

Yes indeed, that is precisely what I did in my second try - with full success. I first detached the way from the relation; unsure though if the relation disappeared by itself, being empty, or that I still needed to remove it myself. Thanks!