[josm-dev] Checking tags

[Paul Hartmann]

On 27.03.2015 09:07, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:51:12AM +0100, Paul Hartmann wrote:
>> On 24.03.2015 09:50, Jochen Topf wrote:
>>> This way we have:
>>> "light green" means "we know that tag and it's accepted".
>>
>> I would not require "accepted" but settle with "documented".
>>
>> It should recognize complicated tags like
>> healthcare:speciality=ophthalmology and parking:lane:both:parallel=on_street
>> both in key and value, otherwise it would be pointless as a spellchecker. I
>> guess a lot of wiki pages need to be adapted, so this information can be
>> extracted. But there would be a value in that beyond the JOSM use.
>
> If I learned one thing from years of working on taginfo is that there is no
> correlation between "accepted", "documented", "often used" or anything like
> that.

 From my point of view, we can leave it up to the user to decide if a 
tag is accepted enough or not. What I'd find useful though, is some kind 
of quick spellchecking. This means it is enough simply extract all tags 
from the wiki, maybe along with an exclusion list that is maintained by 
hand.

As I understand, you already do this for taginfo, but the algorithm does 
not capture all tag combinations. [1]
If a user finds a documented tag that is not recognized in JOSM, they 
should be able to fix the formatting in the wiki and have and updated 
list in JOSM within a day or so.

> This is a rather difficult task, but could certainly be useful, and as
> you say, something "beyond the JOSM use", so maybe it should be discussed in a
> larger forum. I think in the end it would come down to a few people coming up
> with some criteria and creating such as list. Then the community can discuss
> the criteria and discuss this list. But before somebody makes the effort, it is
> all rather theoretical.
>
>>> "grey" like now means any other tags but is actually a positive list of
>>>      tags that are very common and/or docmented on the wiki etc.
>>> "light yellow" looks suspicious, take extra care and re-check, is actually
>>>      the list of all other tags we don't know anything about
>>> "light red" means we know the tag is bad.
>
> Maybe it is better to go forward with the grey/yellow/red part first, which
> is somewhat easier, and add the "green" part later if and when we have such
> a list.

The validator already checks suspicious and bad tags. I see limited use 
in duplicating this functionality.

[1] for example, I see {{tag|healthcare:speciality|ophthalmology}} on 
the wiki page, but no entry on 
<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/healthcare:speciality=ophthalmology#wiki>.

Paul