Overpass API developpement

[Jan Marsch <>]

I already suspected, my query could be much simpler. Works fine.
It also confirmed, my database is corrupt.

Thank you very much, this was very helpful.

Jan Marsch


> Am 22.02.2016 um 02:56 schrieb Pierre Béland <>:
> 
> I suggest that you avoid mixing parent and child queries. 
> 
> In the query below, the union is to extract only the parent objects and 
> output them before querying the childs.
> 
> From Overpass-turbo, Using the Query export function to translate in xml, I 
> obtained the same result.
> 
> this give 431 nodes, 54 ways and 7 relations.
> 
> 
> [out:json];
> (
> way["building"](52.516710528069794, 13.406785726547241, 52.51946886742985, 
> 13.41103971004486 
> );
> way["building:part"](52.516710528069794, 13.406785726547241, 
> 52.51946886742985, 13.41103971004486 
> );
> relation["building"](52.516710528069794, 13.406785726547241, 
> 52.51946886742985, 13.41103971004486 
> );
> relation["building:part"](52.516710528069794, 13.406785726547241, 
> 52.51946886742985, 13.41103971004486 
> );
> relation["type"="building"](52.516710528069794, 13.406785726547241, 
> 52.51946886742985, 13.41103971004486 
> );
> );
> out;
> >;
> out;
>  
>  
> Pierre 
> 
> 
> De : Jan Marsch <>
> À :  
> Envoyé le : Dimanche 21 février 2016 19h16
> Objet : [overpass] Odd results when switching from Overpass QL to XML
> 
> Hello,
> 
> TL;DR: When converting Overpass QL to XML Query, results get messed up.
> 
> Formerly with direct access to public Overpass, I’ve used this query to get 
> all buildings & parts:
> 
> [out:json];
> (
> way["building"]({s},{w},{n},{e});
> node(w);
> way["building:part"]({s},{w},{n},{e});
> node(w);
> relation["building"]({s},{w},{n},{e});
> way(r);
> node(w);
> relation["building:part"]({s},{w},{n},{e});
> way(r);
> node(w);
> relation["type"="building"]({s},{w},{n},{e});
> way(r);
> node(w);
> );out;
> 
> Now I’m running a local Overpass instance which gets accessed by a custom 
> web server.
> In order to use osm3s_query, I needed to convert the query to XML with 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/
> Result is this:
> 
> <osm-script output="json">
>   <union into="_">
>     <query into="_" type="way">
>       <has-kv k="building" modv="" v=""/>
>       <bbox-query e="13.41103971004486" into="_" n="52.51946886742985" 
> s="52.516710528069794" w="13.406785726547241"/>
>     </query>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="way-node"/>
>     <query into="_" type="way">
>       <has-kv k="building:part" modv="" v=""/>
>       <bbox-query e="13.41103971004486" into="_" n="52.51946886742985" 
> s="52.516710528069794" w="13.406785726547241"/>
>     </query>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="way-node"/>
>     <query into="_" type="relation">
>       <has-kv k="building" modv="" v=""/>
>       <bbox-query e="13.41103971004486" into="_" n="52.51946886742985" 
> s="52.516710528069794" w="13.406785726547241"/>
>     </query>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="relation-way"/>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="way-node"/>
>     <query into="_" type="relation">
>       <has-kv k="building:part" modv="" v=""/>
>       <bbox-query e="13.41103971004486" into="_" n="52.51946886742985" 
> s="52.516710528069794" w="13.406785726547241"/>
>     </query>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="relation-way"/>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="way-node"/>
>     <query into="_" type="relation">
>       <has-kv k="type" modv="" v="building"/>
>       <bbox-query e="13.41103971004486" into="_" n="52.51946886742985" 
> s="52.516710528069794" w="13.406785726547241"/>
>     </query>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="relation-way"/>
>     <recurse from="_" into="_" type="way-node"/>
>   </union>
>   <print e="" from="_" geometry="skeleton" limit="" mode="body" n="" 
> order="id" s="" w=""/>
> </osm-script>
> 
> When executing this now, it misses a lot of building parts and ssemingly 
> properties as well.
> 
> I’m very unsure, whether the syntax is correct and whether union and 
> recursions work properly.
> 
> 1. Can I probably use the Overpass QL withiut havin Apache in place?
> 2. Could you review my XML query, regarding the intended query above?
> 
> Thank you very much
> Jan
>