Opened 14 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
#6145 closed enhancement (duplicate)
focus and select on "way end node near other highway" warning (WAS: validator: rename "way end node near other highway" to "end of way near other highway")
Reported by: | skyper | Owned by: | team |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
Keywords: | unconnected_way | Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
Hi
Thanks for your work - it is working again.
I often have problems to find the node. It would be better to rename and select both ways instead of one way and one node.
Thanks
Attachments (0)
Change History (7)
follow-up: 3 comment:1 by , 13 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:2 by , 13 years ago
@simon04
Hey, just go ahead and make the changes plus close the tickets (I can always reopen them).
Otherwise I can not test the results.
Thanks for your work.
P.S.: I have no problem with not changing the name.
comment:3 by , 13 years ago
Keywords: | unconnected_way added |
---|
Replying to simon04:
When taking #6747 into account, both ways and the node should be selected, and the node should be highlighted (zoomed to)?
This requires some deeper change of the code. As there are several open tickets concerning this validator (most of them should be tagged with the keyword unconnected_way
), a deeper refactoring/rewrite {sh,c}ould take care of them all.
comment:4 by , 13 years ago
Summary: | validator: rename "way end node near other highway" to "end of way near other highway" → focus and select on "way end node near other highway" warning (WAS: validator: rename "way end node near other highway" to "end of way near other highway") |
---|
summary adjusted
follow-up: 6 comment:5 by , 11 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → needinfo |
Is there something to do in this ticket, or can we close it as a dupe of #6747 ?
comment:6 by , 11 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | needinfo → new |
Replying to Don-vip:
Is there something to do in this ticket, or can we close it as a dupe of #6747 ?
Strange, I still have a small shift of zooming out compared to selecting + zoom on selected. Noticable with a short way.
Thought the same method is used dor both.
In general this issue seems to be fixed. Thanks a lot.
comment:7 by , 11 years ago
Resolution: | → duplicate |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Closed as duplicate of #6747.
When taking #6747 into account, both ways and the node should be selected, and the node should be highlighted (zoomed to)?
Concerning the error name. I think, this comes from the following similarity and therefore I'd stick with the old name: