Dirk,
Dirk Stöcker wrote:
Maybe the code has bugs, but simply saying that I made a lot of crap is
not the way to go. And yes I take that one a bit personal, as it is
basically my code.
I wasn't aware of this, I thought it had been done by someone else. I
have, however, often been asked "why does the validator complain about
X" and my only answer was "probably it's over-eager... AGAIN".
So maybe you have taken off a lot of it's edge in the last months (and
you are right, I haven't followed recent developments, I wasn't even
aware that you were actively developing validator code), and maybe these
situations have been fixed meanwhile, but certainly more than once in
the past I have cursed validator for giving people all the wrong ideas
and in fact introducing a streamlined kind of mapping which has never
been OSM style.
So before blaming all and everything
start to get more in touch with the recent code base and when necessary
file bug reports where fine tuning is needed.
In my eyes the validator does not have a problem with one specific
check; it has an attitude problem. Until now I wasn't aware that it was
*your* attitude I was criticizing when I said so ;) but I think the
validator is nannying people too much, *especially* (and I checked that
before writing it) since it is enabled by default on a new install.
I don't even have to look past the warning dialog for my first
complaint: Even if the list contains only "warnings", the dialog title
still reads: "Data has errors." - That's what I mean by attitude
problem; in my eyes it is totally wrong to *ever* tell a mapper that his
"data has errors". The validator can at most point out potential
problems - but "data has errors"? As an expericed mapper I percieve that
to be arrogance on JOSM's part, and as a newbie mapper I would certainly
not proceed with uploading.
I'll give some examples for checks that I think are nannying too much,
all these are active by default:
* "untagged way" (warning) - perfectly ok if such a way is a relation
member. You're not showing the warning if it is a multipolygon but there
may be others you don't know of.
* "unknown relation type" (warning) - JOSM should never assume to be in
possession of a full list of allowed relation types!
* "unnamed ways" (warning) - I think it is perfectly normal to draw
streets from aerial imagery and have no name for them.
* "illegal tag/value combinations" - someone seems to have had a field
day here. 90% of these deserve to be thrown out. Only recently it
complained about my "man_made=pipeline" - from reading the source I
found out that it was expecting an extra tag with details about the
pipeline.
To understand the severity of this, take this example: You are new to
JOSM. You map a road and tag it highway=road. You hit upload. You get
(emphasis by me):
Data WITH ERRORS. Upload anyway?
+ Warnings
+ ILLEGAL tag/value combinations - temporary highway type
So, highway=road is an error, and an illegal combination of a tag and
value? Thankfully it doesn't complain when I write highway=raod. Maybe I
should use highway=raod instead of highway=road as the latter is clearly
illegal and an error.
I think the main problem is that the validator is now by default enabled
before download - something you can switch off, of course, but to the
new mapper the "Your data has errors" message conveys: We don't want
your data, please stop what you're doing!
It is funny that both of us seem to have a desire to nanny JOSM users,
just whenever you're doing it I complain and vice versa.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
josm-dev mailing list
josm-dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
