Commit: r887: Reduced verbosity of diagnostics when splitting ways.
Version 887 was commited by markb on 2009-02-14 21:29:02 +0000 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009) Reduced verbosity of diagnostics when splitting ways.
Version 887 was commited by markb on 2009-02-14 21:29:02 +0000 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009)
Reduced verbosity of diagnostics when splitting ways.
Since this commit I get a lot of "Way has zero length segment at lat,lon" warnings. Is this expected and only a warning, or should this be handled as an error?
Version 887 was commited by markb on 2009-02-14 21:29:02 +0000 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009)
Reduced verbosity of diagnostics when splitting ways.
Since this commit I get a lot of "Way has zero length segment at lat,lon" warnings. Is this expected and only a warning, or should this be handled as an error?
Good evening Johann, It was an earlier commit (r884) that introduced that message but you are probably seeing them now because the noise level has reduced! Assuming the message(s) are correct, it means that those ways contain consecutive points with the same coordinates. Probably not useful but an error, I don't know. Cheers, Mark
Assuming the message(s) are correct, it means that those ways contain consecutive points with the same coordinates. Probably not useful but an error, I don't know.
mkgmap said this: Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 The OSM file looked like this: <way id='30050726' timestamp='2009-02-09T09:19:14+00:00' user='rso4x4' visible='true'> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628915' /> <nd ref='343628916' /> <nd ref='343628917' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='330980693' /> <nd ref='330980694' /> <nd ref='330980696' /> <tag k='created_by' v='Potlatch 0.10f' /> <tag k='highway' v='residential' /> <tag k='name' v='Sankt-Sebastian-Straße' /> </way> Bernhard suggested actually printing an URL with the coordinates in so that people can find the way easier. Any suggestions as to the form it should take?
mkgmap said this:
Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488 Way has zero length segment at 48.35356/11.09488
The OSM file looked like this:
<way id='30050726' timestamp='2009-02-09T09:19:14+00:00' user='rso4x4' visible='true'> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='343628915' /> <nd ref='343628916' /> <nd ref='343628917' /> <nd ref='343628914' /> <nd ref='330980693' /> <nd ref='330980694' /> <nd ref='330980696' /> <tag k='created_by' v='Potlatch 0.10f' /> <tag k='highway' v='residential' /> <tag k='name' v='Sankt-Sebastian-Straße' /> </way>
Bernhard suggested actually printing an URL with the coordinates in so that people can find the way easier. Any suggestions as to the form it should take?
Also the id or the name of the way should printed out. I invstigated a node, where 4 ways are conected to the erroneous node. I had no information which one was the defect way. I'm using josm for editing osm data and I would find it very usefull if the validator plugin would test the streets for this error. Any idea where to post this demand?
Also the id or the name of the way should printed out. I invstigated a node, where 4 ways are conected to the erroneous node. I had no information which one was the defect way.
Unfortunately, by the time mkgmap has found this issue, the way has lost it's id - we could carry that info around but it would just use more memory
I'm using josm for editing osm data and I would find it very usefull if the validator plugin would test the streets for this error. Any idea where to post this demand?
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/report/3 You can post a ticket there. Cheers, Mark
I just checked and the preferences dialog for the validator in josm does appear to already do what you want. Have you actually tried checking the whole file?
I just checked and the preferences dialog for the validator in josm does appear to already do what you want. Have you actually tried checking the whole file?
Yes, youre right, the checking is already implemented in validator.
participants (3)
-
Johann Gail -
Mark Burton -
svn commit