[OSM-talk] Validator tags

[sylvain letuffe]

> From my point of view internal=noname and noname=yes both tell me that
> the street has no name. validate:residential-without-name=ignore tell's
> the validator not to highlight the fact that there is no name.
Then we have the same definition.

> But I want a _consistent_ way to do that for _all_ of the different
> checks. 
100 percent with you there, that's probably why we came both of us to :
validate:
and
internal:

> Therefore there is a validate:residential-without-name=ignore 
> too, analogous to validate:bridge-or-tunnel-without-layer=ignore.

Mmmm ? I see a bit of your point but unclear. Do you mean that you want a 
general tag system that would, for any tag that you still don't know, trigger 
an alert  or stop an alert ?

is your "-without-layer" "-without-name" a key word in your programming that 
is re-used in many place ?

Does if I tag validate:peak-without-name=ignore will stop an alert in maplint 
without you doing anything ?

> I'm not believing that there is ever going to be something like
> consensus, so I just went and implemented one sensible solution. 
What if your solution is "not that good" ?, isn't it worth trying to reach a 
consensus ? don't you think in the end the tool makes the use ? especialy for 
such type of tags ?

I fear we just have here what I would call the "attribution fear" what would 
you say about :
- I create a proposition in your name
- I use the validate: namespace
- I correct some.... well... hem most? of it's values to cover your/my needs
- I do all the blabla and voting stuff
- I show you the result so you don't need to "spend time on the wiki"
- we both correct our tools to use it
- we stop covering other tags usage (yes it sounds like un-democratic, but if 
we don't, many tags will still be used for the same thing if they are usable 
in a validation tool)
- we got our "consensus"

> If 
> another tag emerges as consensus it's easy to replace noname=yes with
> that. 
Even if we have thousand noname=yes, thousand of internal=noname, thousand of 
validation=noname in the DB ? not so sure...

> With that attidute we'd still have blank map and would be discussing if
> it should be "highway", "way" or "street".
Come on ;-) I didn't say that attitude is need for the whole programming 
world, I say we have a chance, right now, in 1 day, to reach a trade-off, not 
so bad consensus by spotting problems and make it work.
 
> The commit message is in svn or at
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/12060
Thanks, well, that's again an "how" not a "why" but anyway, I could take some 
of them as I find :
validate:place-of-worship-without-religion 
validate:motorway-without-ref 
validate:bridge-or-tunnel-without-layer 
okay

> That would end in an edit war, I neither want nor have time for.
But I do ! I will undo any things that destroy what I have wrote on a 
proposal, to my mind, no one has the right to delete the content of a 
proposal (And still who would destroy what we have created if it documents 
what we are doing ? )
An approved one or on map feature is another question. No one should have the 
power to impose to all an idea, as no one should have the right to forbid 
someone to have an idea.

 
> The problem is that the wiki is not dokumenting reality but what some
> people would want to be reality. 
It is both, and anyone is allowed to ignore both reality and what someone 
wants to be reality.  But I find most page useful, and close to a reallity. I 
am using the fixme=* tag in my validator, even if no votes were cast for it, 
and that's my right to do so. because I found it useful.

> As a dinosaur I find mailing list much 
> more comfortable than wikis. 
no problems ! I'll copy my end page on the validate: namespace in the talk 
list if you allow me to. 

> so much better
> than the stuff a wiki has to offer.
I respect your point, I don't like wiki myself (I prefere forums) unfortunetly 
the osm one is unused, but what I want, watever is the mean is discussion.


> > why restrict that to residential ?, what about :
> > validate:noname ?
> Because it is a single test in maplint. For the case of unnamed POIs
> there is validate:poi-without-name=ignore. (Which is also shut up by
> noname=yes)
What do you think of 
* validate:noname=yes and * validate:no_sign_name=yes
OR
* validate:name=noname and * validate:name=no_sign_name 
(looks familiar eh ?)

I prefer the second because it makes a street having no name and having no 
sign with a name impossible. 
( If find them exclusives, since if there is no name, there can't be a name 
sign, or else there is an error) 
But if some people thing it should be possible, then I'll propose the first




-- 
Sylvain Letuffe liste at letuffe.org
qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org