#10398 closed defect (fixed)
public_transport:version
| Reported by: | Klumbumbus | Owned by: | team |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 14.09 |
| Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
| Keywords: | public transport version | Cc: | pnorman |
Description ¶
JOSM warns if there is no public_transport:version=* on a relation with type=route ("Route scheme (public_transport or legacy) is unspecified. Add publiv_transport:version").
Is the key public_transport:version=* really necessary? It is not documented in the wiki. Also routes which follow the rules of public_transport scheme do not have forward and backward roles, which is different from the old scheme.
Change History (17)
comment:1 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | → invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 by , 11 years ago
| Component: | Core validator → unspecified |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | invalid |
| Status: | closed → reopened |
Is it possible to document it on wiki? Some time ago I encountered this message, checked wiki, found no documentation and decided to ignore this class of validator warnings.
comment:3 by , 11 years ago
I created the wiki page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport:version
Feel free to improve it.
comment:4 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
comment:5 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:6 by , 11 years ago
I see one problem - according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport:version values 1 and 2 should be used, according to validator message values are public_transport or legacy. Which one is correct?
comment:7 by , 11 years ago
The preset sets 1 or 2. see also taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/public_transport%3Aversion#values
P.S. I like the one who tagged public_transport:version=24 :D
comment:8 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
The wiki is correct:
grep :version defaultpresets.xml
<key key="public_transport:version" value="2" /> <!-- only validate marked relations in order to avoid false positives --> <key key="public_transport:version" value="1" /> <!-- only validate marked relations in order to avoid false positives -->
comment:9 by , 11 years ago
So the validator message needs to get changed!? Route scheme (public_transport or legacy) is unspecified. Add public_transport:version It doesn't say anything about the values 1 and 2. This is what mkoniecz means.
comment:10 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:11 by , 11 years ago
| Component: | unspecified → Core validator |
|---|---|
| Keywords: | public transport version added |
comment:12 by , 11 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|
follow-up: 16 comment:13 by , 11 years ago
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9545#comment:7 still hasn't been addressed.
The JOSM validator is requiring a tag which didn't go through the tag proposal process, isn't a de-facto standard, and isn't used by data consumers.
comment:14 by , 11 years ago
| Milestone: | → 14.09 |
|---|
comment:16 by , 11 years ago
Replying to pnorman:
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9545#comment:7 still hasn't been addressed.
The JOSM validator is requiring a tag which didn't go through the tag proposal process, isn't a de-facto standard, and isn't used by data consumers.
So what is your proposed solution? We need a way to permanently mark the relations in the OSM database. The mark should contain the info about which scheme was used to create the relation (type=route) and which rules to apply while validating it.
Can you propose how to do it without non-standard tags? Can you propose an algorithm how to determine the scheme just from the relation data itself?
Done intentionnaly in #9545 to avoid real problems when validating transport route relations in both schemes.