In an attempt to think this through a bit more, I realise that adding knowledge about similar names for which it's correct that those streets connect, would suppress some true positives (before they are fixed).
An extra tag on the connecting node seems like the best possible solution. Maybe I should propose it on the tagging mailing list anyway. But my experience is that it's better to simply document it on the wiki and start using it. It's mostly harmless anyway. My other problem is with noname=yes. Some streets and especially junctions really don't have a name, but the validator doesn't heed noname=yes and keeps complaining about it. I think the validator is a good tool to improve the data, but it should be possible to totally clear that list and not having to look at the same messages over and over again. I'm working on public transport routes in a complete (small) country. I can't remember which ones I already resolved, but I'd prefer not to waste time over and over again on the ones I did already work on. Polyglot 2015-01-04 3:21 GMT+01:00 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com>: > In that case, can you point me to a place where I can add: > > Wortegem.* <-> Waregem.* > Oost.* <-> West.* > Brugse.* <-> Brugge.* > > etc. > > It would be simpler to change the data and it's already done with noexit > and public_transport:version. For my own scripts I added > expected_rcn_route_relations and expected_rwn_route_relations, in case the > number of route relations connecting at a numbered node is inferior to 3. > > Constantly being distracted by false positives is annoying and it only > causes people to stop looking at the validator's messages. > > Polyglot > > 2015-01-03 21:17 GMT+01:00 Paul Hartmann <phaau...@gmail.com>: > >> Improvement of the validator code is welcome, but I think we should just >> ignore the remaining false positives and don't add any validator-related >> tags to the OSM data. >> >> Paul >> >> 2015-01-03 18:55 GMT+01:00 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I'd like to eliminate as many false >> > positives in the validator as possible. >> > >> > On the one hand I'd like to ask where it is developed. I may be able to >> > lend a hand with the coding. There are some issues with bicycle and >> > hiking/foot route relations, where until now I just shrugged and glossed >> > over them, but it's better to fix it, as I'm noticing other contributors >> > also stumble across them. >> > I know a lot about how these route relations are used in The >> Netherlands, >> > Belgium and parts of Germany (numbered node networks). >> > >> > On the other hand I'd like to propose a tag for nodes which are between >> > streets like (real examples): >> > >> > Bruggesteenweg/Brugsesteenweg >> > Ooststraat/Weststraat >> > >> > I don't think it makes sense to go through all the motions of proposing >> it >> > on tagging, but I'll document it on the wiki if you consider using it in >> > the validator. >> > >> > It might be more convenient to tag it on both adjacent ways, but then it >> > would multiply when those ways are split. >> > >> > So adding it on the connecting node seems cleaner. >> > >> > It could be >> > >> > note=similarly_named_ways_boundary >> > >> > or >> > >> > similarly_named_ways_boundary=yes >> > >> > or >> > >> > something else altogether, as long as the validator can recognise and >> use >> > it. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Polyglot >> > _______________________________________________ >> > josm-dev mailing list >> > josm-dev@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> josm-dev mailing list >> josm-dev@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
