Changes between Version 12 and Version 13 of Ticket #23126


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2024-07-10T21:59:37+02:00 (6 months ago)
Author:
BartekChom
Comment:

I am sorry, apparently I destroyed gaben's corrections!

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #23126 – Description

    v12 v13  
    1 I 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.
     1I 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.
    25
    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)
     6 `area:highway=*` + `smoothness=*` (from
     7 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L276],
     8 e.g. [osmwww:way/1162993735])
    49
    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)
     10 `area:highway=steps` + `step_count=*` (from
     11 [source:josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L24], e.g.
     12 [osmwww:way/950057163])
    613
    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.
     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].
    817
    9 I 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).
     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).