Hi.
I'm new to this list, invited to it because I sayed something to this
topic in IRC.
I'm not answering to Frederiks Mail in particular, but didn't get the
whole topic, so I cannot answer to the original question simply.
I thought about the history feature the OSM has and wonder, if the
deletion of empty nodes normaly should be a problem.
Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the OSM works as follows:
- an object is created, normally - but not necessary with attributes.
- an object can be deleted any time
- if a deleted object is touched again by changing it's attributes, it
will be "recreated" so it's present in the database again.
At least that's something somebody explained me a few month's ago.
If that's the case, I observe:
Deletion of attribute-less objects will never be a problem, as long as
nobody tries to get information from that objects (not included from my
point of view).
Of course the tactics like "I make three dots to mark for myself, that
it needs further work there" will fail in that cases. But what's the
problem in adding a fixme-attribute to that data?
I think, at long sight we need a kind of atomicity for changes, but even
today I don't see a problem at deleting empty, non-tagged nodes as they
contain no useful situation - perhaps except for the one, who created it.
I'm not sure wether empty nodes should be deleted automatically or
semi-automatically, but there are a lot of bots fixing bugs at tagging
automatically - for me empty nodes are most useless of all parts.
Please consider: Everything in this Mail is based on the assumption
about deleting/adding above. If that assumption is not true, forget the
rest.
Regards
Peter Wendorff
On 16.08.2010 19:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Martin,
MP wrote:
You will make some specific check for three continuous dots? Well,
there are areas with thousands of such orphaned nodes and trying to
check if there are somewhere three dots in a line in such areas
wouldn't be easy - either the check will be very slow, prone to
errors, or you will need some complex and sophisticated algorithm to
make it at least somewhat reliable.
Yes, I think a re-think is in order regarding the validators or at
*least* those with a direct influence on editing like the JOSM
validator. When they were introduced, people were relatively sure
about what they were doing and the validator was just an "ummm, not
sure if this is right...?" voice, to be taken with a grain of salt.
But nowadays, too many take the validators for gospel, and refrain
from making legitimate edits because a validator flags them up. Today,
validators should be more cautious about what they flag.
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
