On Sat, 16 Aug 2008, Dermot McNally wrote: > I'd still favour my original suggestion - rather than group all of > these new errors under the single label they now occupy, group them > instead under their respective, detailed, labels. That keeps un-reffed > road errors away from, say, typoed landuse errors. But ultimately, > what I'm saying is "lose the tool tip", at least for information like > this. A good rule of thumb here, would be that tool tips are good for > followup information that might not be necessary in all cases, or for > inexperienced users. But you shouldn't put data behind a tool-tip that > is necessary in order to make use of the error message.
Hmm, maybe I add a third level. I think about it. >> You can ignore them once and for all the time :-) > > I haven't yet worked out the full scope of the ignore option - but it > doesn't seem to ignore all similar cases, only the specific object I Correct. > have selected. In any case, some violations are things that you care > about (like missing refs) but can't always do anything about. (like > tertiaries, where it can be difficult to determine the correct ref). Not in Germany. Here it is easy :-) >> Don't know how make an ignore for specific tests in the test-set. But it's >> a new feature. Give it some time to mature. > > For sure. Lest there should be any doubt, I really like what you've > done here. I'm just struggling with aspects of how the results are > output. This was expectable. One of the problems is, that enabling individual tests is not possible. > I'm not sure I see what you mean here. It doesn't matter to the user > if a crossing way or unclosed area message isn't generated by the tag > checker, even if another 30 messages are. Each violation message > represents something that the mapper needs to review and either repair > or accept in its current state. Do we really need to contain the > tagchecker messages behind an overall label? Maybe there's a technical > reason, but it feels unnecessary from a UI perspective. On my screen I usually have 2-5 lines for the TagChecker. Yes - it is important to have not too many toplevel entries. Ok, I will buy a new laptop soon, but that's no argument. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available) _______________________________________________ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
