Picking up on this one comment:
> I remember when osmarender used to render all street names in
> the same
> font size on all streets even if the streets where too short
> for the
> name to fit. As a result the osmarender:renderName=no tag was
> often
> added to small streets to make the
Hi,
>> I prefer the second because it makes a street having no name and having no
>> sign with a name impossible.
>> ( If find them exclusives, since if there is no name, there can't be a name
>> sign, or else there is an error)
>> But if some people thing it should be possible, then I'll prop
Hi,
>> If you can spend the time to find good names for the individual option
>> (and merge say residential-without-name and poi-without-name to noname)
>> and do all the stuff in the wiki, I'm certainly not opposed to change
>> the naming in maplint. If we can reach consensus in this way and have
> > no problems ! I'll copy my end page on the validate: namespace in the talk
> > list if you allow me to.
> Sure. Go ahead.
I was not kidding, there it is, in just one hour. I'am moving to support it in
my renderer, you can do it on your side.
As ever with osm, support what you want, but pl
Patrick Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
>> Patrick Kilian wrote:
>>> validate:empty-tag-key
>>> validate:empty-tag-value
>>> validate:untagged-way
>>> validate:bridge-or-tunnel-without-layer
>>> validate:deprecated-tags
>>> validate:motorway-without-ref
>>> validate:place-of-worship-wit
sylvain letuffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are there other applications that care whether something really does
>> not have a name or whether the name is just not know?
>
> Yes, I see one. Someone might argue I am not of good faith, but anyway there
> it is :
>
> Suppose I'm working for a loc
> If my solution isn't good it's not going to be used...
I fear it's not true, at first because it is not "not good" ended it is, and
answers a need, I would say, it is not as good as it could be.
( sure, no tag will ever be)
And then because if people have nothing better, they will use it
the t
Hi,
>> From my point of view internal=noname and noname=yes both tell me that
>> the street has no name. validate:residential-without-name=ignore tell's
>> the validator not to highlight the fact that there is no name.
> Then we have the same definition.
Good.
>> But I want a _consistent_ way to
> From my point of view internal=noname and noname=yes both tell me that
> the street has no name. validate:residential-without-name=ignore tell's
> the validator not to highlight the fact that there is no name.
Then we have the same definition.
> But I want a _consistent_ way to do that for _all
> Are there other applications that care whether something really does
> not have a name or whether the name is just not know?
Yes, I see one. Someone might argue I am not of good faith, but anyway there
it is :
Suppose I'm working for a local urban institution and they ask me to replace
any m
Hi,
DavidD wrote:
> I don't really see why this is needed. Wouldn't it be a lot better to
> have a tag for when a street has no visible name sign? Then I and
> other mappers know what is going on and there is no risk of someone
> with local knowledge thing the street is already named.
The idea is
DavidD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/11/22 Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Whatever the syntax is you won't know why someone chose not to include
>> a name tag. The here discussed proposal is only about telling the
>> validator not to complain about the missing tag. It is up to th
Hi,
> Patrick Kilian wrote:
>> validate:empty-tag-key
>> validate:empty-tag-value
>> validate:untagged-way
>> validate:bridge-or-tunnel-without-layer
>> validate:deprecated-tags
>> validate:motorway-without-ref
>> validate:place-of-worship-without-religion
>> validate:poi-without-name
>> validate:
This is great, but...
Patrick Kilian wrote:
> validate:empty-tag-key
> validate:empty-tag-value
> validate:untagged-way
> validate:bridge-or-tunnel-without-layer
> validate:deprecated-tags
> validate:motorway-without-ref
> validate:place-of-worship-without-religion
> validate:poi-without-name
> va
Hi,
>> noname and validate are not really the same thing. "noname" say that
>> something does not have a name. The validate namespace is a lot more
>> universal in its goal.
>
> Exact, but I was making a comparisson between
> * higwhay=residential
> * noname=yes
> and
> * higwhay=residential
>
Patrick Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> noname and validate are not really the same thing. "noname" say that
> something does not have a name. The validate namespace is a lot more
> universal in its goal. It aims to create a namespace for the selective
> disabling of all possible valiation te
> > For instance, the fact that maplint supports noname=yes and the
> > validation: namespace and maybe one day the internal: namespace I've
> > proposed is bad.
> noname and validate are not really the same thing. "noname" say that
> something does not have a name. The validate namespace is a lot
Hi,
>> to disable specific tests. If other variants (like unnamed=yes) or
>> other namespaces for annotations (like the internal namespace) show
>> up prominently enough I'll update maplint again to support those
>> tags too.
>
> I think, we, as validation tools developpers/maintainer, have a
> r
> As of revison 12060 maplint supports
(...)
> to disable specific tests. If other variants (like unnamed=yes) or other
> namespaces for annotations (like the internal namespace) show up
> prominently enough I'll update maplint again to support those tags too.
I think, we, as validation tools dev
Hi all,
As of revison 12060 maplint supports
noname=yes for residential roads and POIs as well as
validate:empty-tag-value
validate:bridge-or-tunnel-without-layer
validate:motorway-without-ref
validate:place-of-worship-without-religion
validate:poi-without-name
validate:residential-without-name
2008/11/22 Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Whatever the syntax is you won't know why someone chose not to include
> a name tag. The here discussed proposal is only about telling the
> validator not to complain about the missing tag. It is up to the
> mapper to be reasonable and not just i
sylvain letuffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> With the first I agree. It is just not possible to define validation
>> rules that always produce the right results. How is the validator to
>> know that this street really has no name?
>
> with a tag that say it has no name ?
With a tag to tell th
> With the first I agree. It is just not possible to define validation
> rules that always produce the right results. How is the validator to
> know that this street really has no name?
with a tag that say it has no name ?
> The second one is evil. An example could be to tag "name= " to get
Pieren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Taging for validation is already a controversial subject.
> But some of your tags are even more controversial:
There are two levels of "tagging for the validator" (or any other
application):
- adding validator specific tags to give the validator a hint what t
> > validate:empty-tag-key
> > validate:empty-tag-value
>
> A tag with an empty key or an empty value is not possible/ not
> allowed. Simple delete or fix the tag if you find such. Don't say to
> maplint "well it's wrong, but don't care about it".
Agreed with pieren for the empty-tag-key, but are
Patrick Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The patch at http://www.petschge.de/osm/ignore-tags/maplint.patch
> modifies the maplint checks to suppress the warning / error if a tag
> with validate:$testname=ignore is present on the object.
I have been wanting something like this.
> A tag of k="
> I guess the patch could be expanded to not expect a name for
> "internal:noname=yes"
The current proposal is "internal:name=noname" so we can also
have "internal:name=noname_sign" when it's unsure the object as a name, but
it is known that no sign gives this information and because both shoul
Hi all,
see http://www.petschge.de/osm/ignore-tags/noname.patch for a dead
simple non-extensible alternative which only supports noname=yes.
Patrick "Petschge" Kilian
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/
Taging for validation is already a controversial subject.
But some of your tags are even more controversial:
> validate:empty-tag-key
> validate:empty-tag-value
A tag with an empty key or an empty value is not possible/ not
allowed. Simple delete or fix the tag if you find such. Don't say to
mapl
Hi,
> Whoops, looks like we are working on the same thing, with same goal and
> almost
> the same method
Looks like you want to formalize the note=* thing a bit. Which is a good
think.
I guess the patch could be expanded to not expect a name for
"internal:noname=yes". Alternativly you could exc
On Friday 21 November 2008 15:00, Patrick Kilian wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi alone !
> I want to propose a technically clean way to deal with unnamed streets
> and other false positives of the maplint checks.
(...)
> For a street which does not have a name (for whatever reason) one would
> you k="validate
Hi all,
I want to propose a technically clean way to deal with unnamed streets
and other false positives of the maplint checks.
The patch at http://www.petschge.de/osm/ignore-tags/maplint.patch
modifies the maplint checks to suppress the warning / error if a tag
with validate:$testname=ignore is
32 matches
Mail list logo
