On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt Amos wrote: >> i don't consider consecutive duplicate nodes to necessarily indicate >> corrupt data. its up to the client to interpret the user's intent - >> and if the user genuinely wanted consecutive duplicate nodes then >> thats fine by me. > > True, but you are going to restrict k/v pairs ;) And that is a thing some > users want too ;) [I don't think I ever needed it]
we're only going to restrict them on nodes, they were already restricted on ways and relations by the API. and most clients restricted them on all types. in this case i look at it as being more consistent, rather than introducing new restrictions. :-) >> i can't think of any use for consecutive duplicate nodes, *yet*. there >> might be people already using this for something, or we might find a >> use for it in the future. for the moment, i consider this to be a >> minor client UI bug which can be most easily fixed by the clients, not >> by the server. > > I think it was you that was previously so smart on IRC about not > overengineering your database types. This is exactly the same case, don't > allow it unless someone actually has a use for it. ok - if noone disagrees i'll implement it. it should be pretty easy in the pre-save checks. it'll need to go in post-0.6, though... i don't want to change the code too much in the last few days, just in case ;-) cheers, matt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
