[OSM-dev] New OSM Test Data Repository

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 21 February 2014, you wrote:
>
> I am not sure yet what exactly the "valid" and "invalid" mean and
> whether we need different outcomes. For the moment "valid" means more
> something like: "The data looks good, could exist in a real database,
> and everybody would agree on how to interpret it." While "invalid" is
> everything else.

I suppose there are many cases where it would make sense to allow an 
assessment somewhere between 'fully valid no matter how hard you look 
at it' and 'invalid beyond any consistent interpretation of the data'.  
It might make sense to say robust programs should be able to deal with 
certain data while data producing progams should avoid generating such 
data.

> I haven't figured out all the details yet, for the moment I am trying
> to get the ball rolling, get started writing test data and tests
> programs that use them. We'll figure out the details along the way.

It will be interesting to see results for multipolygons in various 
programs.  I have long suspected the JOSM validator is fairly 'loose' 
in this regard (which is a bad thing - validation in the editor should 
ideally be the strictest check of all) but never got around to pinning 
this down.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/