Re: [OSM-dev] CT-incompatible planet file?
David Groom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Körner" <osm-...@mazdermind.de>
To: <d...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] CT-incompatible planet file?
> Am 27.03.2012 22:32, schrieb David Groom:
>> Is there anywhere a CT-incompatible planet file? i.e a file containing
>> all the ways and nodes which are likely to be dropped during the rebuild.
>
> Take a look at
> http://cleanmap.poole.ch/
>
Peter
I'm not sure that is a help
Are you implying that somewhere on this site there is an OSM file available
for download which contains all the ways which are going to be deleted? All
I can see is a map (which shows nothing about coastline status.)
David
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> d...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Stefan Keller
Of course I could do it but who - if not the developers - would know
better than they themselves?
I think that it would be a sign of maturity of the OSM project if an
XML schema would exist!
Just my 2 cents.
-Stefan
2012/3/28 Robert Helgesson <rob...@rycee.net>:
> On 2012-03-27, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote:
>> On 27/03/12 16:53, Robert Helgesson wrote:
>>> I'm wondering, does anybody have an up-to-date XML Schema or DTD
>>> for the OSM files used by the v0.6 API? The ones I found at
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/XSD and
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/DTD don't seem to fully
>>> represent the format.
>>
>> Those are both user contributed and quite likely permanently out of
>> date as none of the developers will be likely to update them.
>
> Ok, thanks for the warning and I see that somebody has added the
> warning to the wiki-pages I linked. Anyway, I'll use the 'natural
> language' documentation on the wiki instead.
>
> /Robert
Frederik Ramm
On 03/28/12 17:08, Stefan Keller wrote:
> We're speaking of about three pages of XML and that is not that big thing.
> Of course I could do it but who - if not the developers - would know
> better than they themselves?
> I think that it would be a sign of maturity of the OSM project if an
> XML schema would exist!
It is easy to write an XML schema but it would never be binding for
anyone. The problem is that people would still assume that the schema
was somehow the gold standard and every OSM XML file that they ever see
would comply to that "standard", and that is simply not the case.
For example, JOSM writes almost-compatible OSM XML but has an additional
"action" attribute. Of course someone only looking at the API code would
not know that there are files with such an attribute. So would it be
included in the "standard" or not? And if not, it's not going to be long
until someone pops up on the JOSM list and complains that JOSM was
writing "invalid" files (because they don't comply with the "standard").
There are other tools that do similar things.
I think the better way is to think of our XML as a general, weakly
formatted exchange format, instead of something that conforms to a given
schema. Think of our XML as if it were JSON.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail fred...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
Stefan Keller
2012/3/28 Frederik Ramm <fred...@remote.org> wrote:
> It is easy to write an XML schema but it would never be binding for anyone.
I think there's some misunderstandng aroun, because I would say: Yes,
exactly, an XML Schema of OSM version 0.6 should be binding for
anyone! We already have a flexible data model. Sticking to a schema
would enable automatisation and would make life easier to write OSM
software.
> The problem is that people would still assume that the schema was somehow
> the gold standard and every OSM XML file that they ever see would comply to
> that "standard", and that is simply not the case.
Being able to validate OSM XML files against an XML Schema with one of
the many XML tools around would be an advantage for the whole project.
> For example, JOSM writes almost-compatible OSM XML but has an additional
> "action" attribute. Of course someone only looking at the API code would not
> know that there are files with such an attribute. So would it be included in
> the "standard" or not? And if not, it's not going to be long until someone
> pops up on the JOSM list and complains that JOSM was writing "invalid" files
> (because they don't comply with the "standard").
There's no problem having "additional" attributes: XML Schema knows
optional XML attributes.
> I think the better way is to think of our XML as a general, weakly formatted
> exchange format, instead of something that conforms to a given schema. Think
> of our XML as if it were JSON.
Nice hint: I also like JSON Schema for the above mentioned reasons :->
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON#Schema
- Stefan
2012/3/28 Frederik Ramm <fred...@remote.org>:
Peter Körner
> I'm not sure that is a help
Komяpa
nice to preview - at least for broken coastlines and broken routing.