Dirk Stöcker schrieb:
* unknown relation type (warning) - JOSM should never assume to be in
possession of a full list of allowed relation types!
Right, that it only knows certain types, but making it an Info-text makes
it loosing its function. Here the you should be sure if you know better
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
Hi,
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
recently I started to use multipolygons to save ways. For instance I
draw a closed way and tag it with barrier=fence. Then I make a
multipolygon-relation where I add the way as outer and assign a
landuse. The Josm-Validator gives me a strange warning about this:
2011/3/4 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
It means that the validator is *much* too over-eager and needs to be toned
down. I have seen people break their perfect mapping because of it.
+1 (there is also warnings about close way ends where the way is a
barrier). IMHO JOSM should not encourage
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
recently I started to use multipolygons to save ways. For instance I
draw a closed way and tag it with barrier=fence. Then I make a
multipolygon-relation where I add the way as outer and assign a
landuse. The Josm-Validator gives me a strange
2011/3/4 Dirk Stöcker openstreet...@dstoecker.de:
Please make an example which shows this. This warning essentially means that
you have NO style for the multipolygon and multiple outer ways, which have
different styles. This means that it is not clear what the multipolygon
actually should be.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
recently I started to use multipolygons to save ways. For instance I
draw a closed way and tag it with barrier=fence. Then I make a
multipolygon-relation where I add the way as outer and assign a
landuse. The Josm-Validator gives me a strange warning
2011/3/4 Dirk Stöcker openstreet...@dstoecker.de:
Validator has been tuned a lot in the last months to reach a proper balance
between warnings and useful output. All your posts in the last weeks show
that you don't follow the JOSM develop close enough to have a good judgment
on these issues.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Please make an example which shows this. This warning essentially means that
you have NO style for the multipolygon and multiple outer ways, which have
different styles. This means that it is not clear what the multipolygon
actually should be.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Another issue where I get warnings are overlapping areas (which is
not using a multipolygon for adjacent areas, so their ways are partly
overlapping). Personally I ignore them but I know of quite some
situations where other mappers disconnected
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
