2011/3/4 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Other things aside, as a user of JOSM have some comments.
I'll give some examples for checks that I think are nannying too much, all
these are active by default:
* unknown relation type (warning) - JOSM should never assume to be in
possession of a
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
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,
Am 05.03.2011 11:51, schrieb Dirk Stöcker:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
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
On 03/04/2011 10:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
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
hbogner writes:
We who use it for years know what to do, but new useras are confused.
I agree. What might work for better nannying is to only run the
validator on things they've changed. Otherwise they get asked to fix
everything within the bounding box they downloaded.
Even better than that
On 5-3-2011 18:37, Mike N wrote:
On 3/5/2011 12:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
I agree. What might work for better nannying is to only run the
validator on things they've changed. Otherwise they get asked to fix
everything within the bounding box they downloaded.
? It already works this way for
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, hbogner wrote:
We lost some new OSM mappers because of this.
If the people are discouraged that easily then they would have gone soon
anyway. Have you ever got a message/email from someone who thinks that you
destroyed his work due to a simple modification. The validator
Dirk Stöcker writes:
So a note to these of you trying to convince me that we have a major
problem with validator: This opinion does not match the statistical data
that we have. Especially as validator had 80% installation count
even before it moved into core.
Not valid data because
Hi,
Dirk Stöcker wrote:
If I judge this issue based on the ticket reports we get, than we have
only minor problems with this. And half of the reports ask to add
additional checks and not to remove some.
That's because you have created a perfect user nannying environment and
people react to
Am 05.03.2011 21:27, schrieb Dirk Stöcker:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, hbogner wrote:
We lost some new OSM mappers because of this.
If the people are discouraged that easily then they would have gone soon
anyway. Have you ever got a message/email from someone who thinks that
you destroyed his work
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If I judge this issue based on the ticket reports we get, than we have
only minor problems with this. And half of the reports ask to add
additional checks and not to remove some.
That's because you have created a perfect user nannying environment
Lennard l...@xs4all.nl writes:
On 5-3-2011 18:37, Mike N wrote:
On 3/5/2011 12:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
I agree. What might work for better nannying is to only run the
validator on things they've changed. Otherwise they get asked to fix
everything within the bounding box they downloaded.
On 03/05/2011 09:27 PM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
The time for basic mapping is over (at least in Germany and central
europe) and tools like the validator are more and more important to get
a useable database.
Germany is NOT the rest of the world, we still have a lot of basic
maping to do.
PS.
I personaly use validator when fixing errors found with other tools, but
i know how to use it :D
___
josm-dev mailing list
josm-dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
14 matches
Mail list logo
