[josm-dev] Similarly named ways

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Sun Jan 4 02:21:21 UTC 2015


In that case, can you point me to a place where I can add:

Wortegem.* <-> Waregem.*
Oost.* <-> West.*
Brugse.* <-> Brugge.*

etc.

It would be simpler to change the data and it's already done with noexit
and public_transport:version. For my own scripts I added
expected_rcn_route_relations and expected_rwn_route_relations, in case the
number of route relations connecting at a numbered node is inferior to 3.

Constantly being distracted by false positives is annoying and it only
causes people to stop looking at the validator's messages.

Polyglot

2015-01-03 21:17 GMT+01:00 Paul Hartmann <phaaurlt at gmail.com>:

> Improvement of the validator code is welcome, but I think we should just
> ignore the remaining false positives and don't add any validator-related
> tags to the OSM data.
>
> Paul
>
> 2015-01-03 18:55 GMT+01:00 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I'd like to eliminate as many false
> > positives in the validator as possible.
> >
> > On the one hand I'd like to ask where it is developed. I may be able to
> > lend a hand with the coding. There are some issues with bicycle and
> > hiking/foot route relations, where until now I just shrugged and glossed
> > over them, but it's better to fix it, as I'm noticing other contributors
> > also stumble across them.
> > I know a lot about how these route relations are used in The Netherlands,
> > Belgium and parts of Germany (numbered node networks).
> >
> > On the other hand I'd like to propose a tag for nodes which are between
> > streets like (real examples):
> >
> > Bruggesteenweg/Brugsesteenweg
> > Ooststraat/Weststraat
> >
> > I don't think it makes sense to go through all the motions of proposing
> it
> > on tagging, but I'll document it on the wiki if you consider using it in
> > the validator.
> >
> > It might be more convenient to tag it on both adjacent ways, but then it
> > would multiply when those ways are split.
> >
> > So adding it on the connecting node seems cleaner.
> >
> > It could be
> >
> > note=similarly_named_ways_boundary
> >
> > or
> >
> > similarly_named_ways_boundary=yes
> >
> > or
> >
> > something else altogether, as long as the validator can recognise and use
> > it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Polyglot
> > _______________________________________________
> > josm-dev mailing list
> > josm-dev at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> josm-dev mailing list
> josm-dev at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
>


More information about the josm-dev mailing list