There certainly is benefit to piggybacking QA data on the OSM databases,
but there are downsides. Moving a node will not change the way's version
id. This change can make the building square/notsqure/overlap/whatever.
The way needs to be rechecked by the QA tool. But it can't know know
that from the way version.
On 10.05.19 22:17, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:39 PM Yves <yve...@mailbox.org
<mailto:yve...@mailbox.org>> wrote:
Some validation tools, like Osmose, make great efforts to maintain a
'false positive' database.
If the same validation is done by multiple tools, they need to share the
"false positive" data, otherwise only one tool would know not to change
something, while another tool will encourage the user to make the same
mistake.
So we either have to set up an OSM shadow database that contains all
exceptions, e.g. "object NNNN is exempt from validation XXXX", or this
data should be stored in the object itself, which seems to be a far more
robust approach (same data store allows data consistency / versioning /
user management / tracking / consistency between tools / same processing
pipeline / ...).
If the objection to this is that users don't want to see junk data, I
agree -- but we could simply dedicate a key namespace to validations,
and hide it by default in JOSM and iD.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
