Changes between Version 13 and Version 14 of Ticket #23126


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2024-07-10T22:02:09+02:00 (13 months ago)
Author:
BartekChom
Comment:

I am sorry again, I am breaking everything.

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #23126 – Description

    v13 v14  
    1 I have seen in Verdaccio some complains that probably are unnecessary.
    2  Famlam on Osmose GitHub identified relevant lines in your file and asked
    3  me to report it to you https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-
    4  backend/issues/1986, so I am doing it, although I am a bit confused.
     1I 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.
    52
    6  `area:highway=*` + `smoothness=*` (from
    7  [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L276],
    8  e.g. [osmwww:way/1162993735])
     3`area:highway=*` + `smoothness=*` (from  [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L276], e.g. [osmwww:way/1162993735])
    94
    10  `area:highway=steps` + `step_count=*` (from
    11  [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L24], e.g.
    12  [osmwww:way/950057163])
     5`area:highway=steps` + `step_count=*` (from  [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L24], e.g. [osmwww:way/950057163])
    136
    14  When I look at your file, I suspect that at least `area:highway=service` +
    15  `living_street=yes` should be accepted too despite
    16  [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 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L17].
    178
    18  I am not sure, but probably `[!area:highway]` should be added to all three
    19  lines (unless I should not duplicate such tags on area:highway - however I
    20  could argue that at least with smoothness users could want to know to what
    21  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).