On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 15:27, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > >> I've only submitted one very minor patch to osmosis so I'm not at all > >> familiar with its architecture, but is it really so hard to just > >> ignore version fields if they're negative integers? > > > > Is that the only problem? Would proper processing of JOSM-generated files > > not also include > > > > * being able to work with missing date, username, userid attributes > > * ignoring objects that have action="delete" > > * alternatively carrying through any existing action attribute? > > Maybe, yes. But when I've had to work with these sort of files I've > been using osmosis to do some sort of munging operation. So just the > simple semantic of being more permissive about what to accept and pass > through unknown things as-is (like action=*) would work for those > cases. > I guess it's possible to make it more permissive about the version attribute if that helps things. It would have to be assigned a default value though (eg. 0), would that be okay? The action attribute is much more problematic. There is no way currently of generically passing additional attributes through the pipeline. I don't want to add extra attributes to Osmosis entity types that are specific to JOSM files. Would it be helpful to have relaxed version attribute processing without dealing with the action attribute? Brett
_______________________________________________ osmosis-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmosis-dev
