#15863 closed defect (fixed)
ImageryCompare geojson output issues
Reported by: | Owned by: | team | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | External imagery source | Version: | |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
The geojson output of ImageryCompare is slightly less copy pasteable into ELI that it could be
- The name of the "attribution" object is mispelled and the schema does not contain a field "terms-of-use-url" in the "attribution" object
- The geojson Feature object name needs to be "Feature"
- There is no field "valid_georeference" in the schema
Attachments (0)
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 7 years ago
Summary: | ImageryCompare geojson output issues! → ImageryCompare geojson output issues |
---|
comment:2 by , 7 years ago
comment:3 by , 7 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Fixed the typos.
The additional fields are there because this is an export of JOSM database in another format. It tries to be as compatible to ELI format as possible, but it still covers our dataset.
comment:4 by , 7 years ago
I'm not opposed to having the extra fields, the just should be at least documented a bit, so that people know in advance what they need to remove and don't have to start hunting down validation errors one by one.
comment:5 by , 7 years ago
See ImageryCompare, the part "JOSM-only properties according to JOSM-schema".
follow-up: 7 comment:6 by , 7 years ago
It needs a sentence that it will actually preserve and output them in the converted output, that is what isn't clear, not that the two systems have somewhat differing schemas.
comment:7 by , 7 years ago
Replying to anonym:
It needs a sentence that it will actually preserve and output them in the converted output, that is what isn't clear, not that the two systems have somewhat differing schemas.
Feel free to change it. It's a wiki.
Anyway it would be much easier if ELI would simply support the missing JOSM features.
comment:8 by , 7 years ago
Component: | unspecified → External imagery source |
---|
Replying to simon@…:
Hm. I think it doesn't really make sense as long as it is not part of the ELI schema.