Peter Wendorff wrote > > >> My following of web standards has convinced me it is necessary to define >> the >> expected output in every case, including invalid ones, or you will have >> differing implementations. I've been giving it some thought as to what >> needs >> to be tested, and I don't think it's excessive. I'd estimate 25-50 small >> tests would cover everything. > +1 > But it should be possible to reject false polygon models. > So to say: > - any application "must" deal with correct tagging in the same way > (which is defined by the corresponding test cases) > - if an application interprets wrong polygons, it "must" do it in the > way which is defined by the corresponding test cases > - but(!) every application is allowed to reject these polygons because > of errors > - any application is encouraged to report wrong polygons detected to > users who may be able to fix that in the database. > >
That sounds reasonable. But we need to agree on what is valid and what is treated as invalid. In the testsuite of closed ways that I commited to github I defined an output for every case, but I'm not sure if the inputs are valid. My guess would be: 1) Definitely valid 2) valid 3-5 not sure 6) invalid 7) valid 8) not sure 9) invalid 10) valid 11,12) invalid For everybody not willing to look on github: I'm talking about the polygons in [1] from bottom to top. [1] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/58628/polygontest.osm Best regards, Melchior -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-OGR-driver-to-read-OpenStreetMap-osm-pbf-files-tp5715906p5716469.html Sent from the Developer Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
