Opened 4 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#3556 closed defect (fixed)
False positive conflicts when merging nodes
| Reported by: | pieren3@… | Owned by: | Gubaer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | critical | Component: | Core |
| Version: | latest | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
False conflicts appears on latest josm tests:
- create two new empty nodes A and B
- add on node A a dummy tag (e.g. "bla"="bla")
- merge with empty node B
It creates a conflict where it shouldn't. Tag "bla" doesn't exists in node B.
Attachments (0)
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by Gubaer
- Resolution set to wontfix
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 4 years ago by pieren3@…
- Resolution wontfix deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
Wow, this will be a big change from the JOSM behaviour for merging. I belong to the group who expect a conflict when there is a real conflict (two keys, different values) and clean-up tag combinations only when it is necessary, otherwise I don't merge.
May I suggest to make this new behaviour configurable ? My guess is that you will have a lot of complains about this additional dialog.
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 4 years ago by Gubaer
May I suggest to make this new behaviour configurable ? My guess is that you will have a lot of complains about this additional dialog.
Not yet, yours is the the first one :-)
Except perhaps #3460, but this one complains about a slightly different aspect of the new conflict resolution dialog.
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by pieren3@…
I think I understand now why this is really annoying. Even when you combine a complete new and empty way (or an empty node), we have now this dialog. When you merge or combine something existing with some new element, we don't expect such dialog (which could be understandable if both elements carry some information).
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 4 years ago by stoecker
Maybe make omit the dialog when only one joined element has tags at all? That should solve most of the annoyance without losing the better information.
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 4 years ago by Gubaer
- Owner changed from team to Gubaer
- Status changed from reopened to new
Replying to stoecker:
Maybe make omit the dialog when only one joined element has tags at all? That should solve most of the annoyance without losing the better information.
Yes, I think so too. I'll see what I can do.
comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by stoecker
Ticket #3103 has been marked as a duplicate of this ticket.
comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by stoecker
Ticket #3460 has been marked as a duplicate of this ticket.
comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by stoecker
The other reports are about combining ways, but the issue is the same.
comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by Gubaer
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
This was introduced due to another ticket (don't remember the id any more).
The very fact that "bla" doesn't exist on B *is* in conflict that it exists on B. How should the merged node look like? Should it have a tag "bla"="bla" or not? Some users expect it to have the tag, other don't and a third group would like to decide from case to case.
JOSM now displays a conflict dialog. The default decision is to keep "bla"="bla" but you can override it by selecting the value "None" in the list of possible values for the tag "bla".