Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#3328 closed defect (fixed)
show note= again at relations
| Reported by: | malenki | Owned by: | team |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Core | Version: | latest |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
At the relationlist up to some not so old versions one was showed the name of the raltion and if nonexistend the contend of the note-field. Now that behaviour is changed into showing the relation-ID if no name is present.
I want the old behaviour back. It is not useful start tagging hikingroutes with name=red bar which i found between city A and village B.
How is one supposed to tell the routes apart from each other? Surely not by learning all the IDs inside out. At the moment I edit a one days 55 km-log. The date I downloaded along contains about 54 relations of which 33 are routes. Enhancing hiking routes (which whas the main reason i spent my holidays for OSM) is impossible at the moment so please fix that quick.
java version "1.6.0_15"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_15-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 14.1-b02, mixed mode)
josm 1992
Attachments (1)
Change History (16)
follow-up: 3 comment:1 by , 16 years ago
| Priority: | critical → normal |
|---|
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
Replying to anonymous:
This is not really critical. Setting to normal.
... but I fixed it anyway :-)
comment:4 by , 16 years ago
This is a duplicate of #1747 that was reopened *yesterday*. Funny thing, new tickets attract more attention than reopens of old tickets. I'll remember that.
follow-up: 8 comment:6 by , 16 years ago
It was critical to me since I could not continue working at "my" hiking routes. Indeed it would have been blocker for me, if there wouldn't be a "tested" JOSM. ;)
Sorry I did not find 1747. I admit this time i had forgotten to search for an existing ticket.
And I want to thank you for the fast fixing!
Regards
malenki
comment:8 by , 16 years ago
And I want to thank you for the fast fixing!
I had to, it was me who broke it ;-)
comment:9 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
anonymous broke it? I hope anonymous will fix it again since it's broken in 2091 again.
comment:10 by , 16 years ago
Can't reproduced. I tried the following steps:
# create new relation
# add just one tag: note=This is a note
The relation is then displayed with the name relation("This is a note"), 0 elements) in the relation list dialog.
Do you have more specific infos about what is going wrong?
comment:11 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Sorry, my failure this time. I mixed up a relation which had indeed no note with another one with the same amount of elements :(
comment:12 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
I am sorry to reopen this again, but I found one relation whose note is not - unlike all others - displayed. Strange thing. The relation is # 239129, see also the screenshot.
by , 16 years ago
| Attachment: | josm_one_relation_without_note.png added |
|---|
comment:13 by , 16 years ago
The tag key is note (with a trailing blank).
Could qualify as a "data error" but I guess I'd better fix it in the code (checking for "note" tags with whathever-sequence-of-trailing-or-leading-whitespace) ;-)
comment:14 by , 16 years ago
arghs -.- And I thought I checked everything.
sigh
Thanks for letting me bother you. ;)
This is not really critical. Setting to normal.