Changes between Version 10 and Version 11 of Ticket #23126


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2024-07-10T21:46:45+02:00 (19 months ago)
Author:
gaben
Comment:

use macros

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #23126 – Description

    v10 v11  
    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 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L276], e.g. [osmwww: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 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L24], e.g. [osmwww: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 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L17].
    88
    99I 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).