Changes between Version 11 and Version 12 of Ticket #23126


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2024-07-10T21:50:24+02:00 (21 months ago)
Author:
BartekChom
Comment:

I am sorry, I have practically no new thoughts to add. Maybe I should explain that I have finally added grave accent symbols in the ticket description. To be honest, I am writing because I want to show that I am still watching this ticket and I am happy that it is active again.

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #23126 – Description

    v11 v12  
    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 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L276], e.g. [osmwww: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 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L24], e.g. [osmwww: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 [source: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
    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).