[OSM-talk] NoName

[Franc Carter]

Agreed, I think you are on to something with this.

cheers

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> David Earl wrote:
> > There are only really three solutions, I think:
> > 1. do nothing and don't worry about it
> > 2. have a separate tag (as with noname=true)
> > 3. have a special value for the name tag (name=none or some such)
>
> Not having a name is not a property of an object, it is the absence of a
> property.
>
> The absence of a name property from an object is not generally
> significant (how many of our objects have a name - probably less than
> 5%). Those that don't have a name simply don't have a name and it works
> well for editors and renderers alike; nobody has ever even thought of
> issuing all of them with a special tag documenting the absence of a name.
>
> The absence of a name becomes only significant in the context of a
> certain check we run on our data, which operates on the assumption that
> roads of a certain kind usually bear a name.
>
> It is thus not the object that we should address with a tag, but the
> check. The object should have a tag saying "in the context of test
> so-and-so, this object has to receive special treatment".
>
> This is something that has often been asked for by users of the JOSM
> validator plugin, which every now and then highlights a possible problem
> that upon closer inspection is perfectly all right; people would like to
> tag the object(s) in question with the OSM equivalent of a "sic!" -
> "yes, dear validator, this road *is* really like that, don't worry".
>
> You need exactly the same for your "missing name" situation - a tag that
> tells the "name present on residential roads?" test that it should not
> worry about this road.
>
> The new tag could take a list of values that specify the tests that
> should be ignored for this object, e.g.
>
> test_ignore=name_present[,other_test,third_test]
>
> where the names of tests could be documented on a wiki page (and not all
> tests would be run by the same software of course).
>
> Obviously this would then have to be supported by the validator plugin,
> and whenever the validator detects something suspicious the user should
> have the option of clicking "ignore this situation in the future".
>
>
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Franc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080915/8e78b39e/attachment.html>