At 2010-08-16 11:44, Sebastian Klein wrote:
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).
The point of this discussion: There are people who get information from 3
empty nodes at the end of a way.
_______ ...
Is this documented somewhere? I've removed untagged nodes that are
scattered around from the various bugs and anomalies that have been cited.
If I've removed someone's graphical ellipses, I'm sorry, but I've had no
reasonable way to understand that they meant anything.
I think this is a poor fit for the OSM tagging data model. Acceptance of it
could be used to defend people drawing other untagged constellations, like
question marks and exclamation points, instead of using the fundamental
accepted scheme (tagging) to communicate what they are doing.
It is another way of saying "fixme=continue" on that way.
But it is easy in JOSM, for example, to create a toolbutton that does this
with one mouseclick.
Although I consider this style a little old fashioned, we shouldn't
destroy other people's work, just because we don't like the way they are
doing things.
Agreed, though we don't have to condone it's continued use.
So why not let validator detect these cases when searching for dup nodes?
There shouldn't be a problem with that...
It's certainly quite a bit harder to decide if there are nearby untagged
nodes from the same changeset. Wouldn't it make more sense to write a bot
to find these and tag them than to burden the validator forever with this
special code? Should we at least vote on it's continued use? Do people that
use it really feel that strongly?
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
