Changes between Initial Version and Version 10 of Ticket #23126


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2024-07-10T21:42:34+02:00 (19 months ago)
Author:
BartekChom
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #23126

    • Property Component Core → Core validator
    • Property Cc Famlam added

  • Ticket #23126 – Description

    initial v10  
    11I have seen in Verdaccio some complains that probably are unnecessary. Famlam on Osmose GitHub identified relevant lines in your file and asked me to report it to you https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/issues/1986, so I am doing it, although I am a bit confused.
    22
    3 area:highway=* + smoothness=* (from https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L276, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1162993735)
     3`area:highway=*` + `smoothness=*` (from https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L276, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1162993735)
    44
    5 area:highway=steps + step_count=* (from https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L24, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/950057163)
     5`area:highway=steps` + `step_count=*` (from https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L24, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/950057163)
    66
    7 When I look at your file, I suspect that at least area:highway=service + living_street=yes should be accepted too despite https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L17.
     7When I look at your file, I suspect that at least `area:highway=service` + `living_street=yes` should be accepted too despite https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L17.
    88
    9 I am not sure, but probably [!area:highway] should be added to all three lines (unless I should not duplicate such tags on area:highway - however I could argue that at least with smoothness users could want to know to what area it applies).
     9I am not sure, but probably `[!area:highway]` should be added to all three lines (unless I should not duplicate such tags on area:highway - however I could argue that at least with smoothness users could want to know to what area it applies).