[OSM-talk] Validator tags

[sylvain letuffe]

> With the first I agree.  It is just not possible to define validation
> rules that always produce the right results.  How is the validator to
> know that this street really has no name?

with a tag that say it has no name ?


> The second one is evil.  An example could be to tag "name= " to get
> the validator to shut up without messing up rendered maps.

in the no name proposal there are some with :
name=__none__
name=NONE
name=

If also find both three "evil"
( well, no "evil", but say "inapropriate" )

> In general, there should only be ignore rules for specific tags that
> have a "legitimate" use case.  
I don't like the idea of "ignore" wether it is for bots or for validators

"ignore=tagX" sounds too much to me that we don't have any information added
while on the opposite :
info=there_is_no_name_to_this_street
look like we have an information 

Even if the final result looks the same.

I don't say it can happen, but suppose I'm working for a government and it 
asks me to give a list of all street for which :
- a sign with the name has been forgotten/stolen/destroyed
- the local authority forgot to set a name to that street

With the "ignore" logic, I won't be able to know why the street creator did 
put that tag and would have to guess that "maybe" he has done so because the 
street as no name. But It could also be because he wants the name not to be 
renderer on a map, or he is unsure about the spelling but don't want it to be 
red on the noname map...


> But, if it is not
> possible that there is a place_of_worship without a religion it should
> not be possible to suppress the maplint warning if it has none.  If
> the relegion is simply not known this is still an error in the data.

Completly agreed, however, if it turns out that a place_of_worship can (this 
is just an example) have no religion "attached" then I would agree in 
creating a :
internal:place_of_worship=no_religion
 
--
sly
sylvain letuffe