search

Sadless74 / googletransitdatafeed

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed
0 stars 0 forks source link

Validation - More convincing reasoning for not providing duplicate information. #61

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Validation output needs better explanation of why duplicate information is
bad. Will want to refrain for describing exactly how the data will be
displayed.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by fredf...@gmail.com on 16 Jul 2008 at 11:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Which fields in particular? There are already warnings when
route_short_name,route_long_name,route_desc have too much in common. We can't 
help it
if people ignore the yellow warnings but perhaps there are cases the validator
misses. For example trip_headsign and stop_headsign conflicts with route text
strings. See also issue 31.

Original comment by tom.brow...@gmail.com on 17 Jul 2008 at 12:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
are route name duplications (duplications in general) launch blocking? if yes, 
then
they should be considered errors not warnings. if in fact, there is a good 
reason for
the duplication, the error can be ignored.

Original comment by fredf...@gmail.com on 17 Jul 2008 at 12:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
we shouldn't make a problem an error unless it is against the spec and always 
incorrect. repetition in route_short_name,route_long_name,route_desc is 
sometimes okay 
which is why it is only a warning. If you have a specific example of repetition 
that 
isn't caught please reopen this bug.

Original comment by tom.brow...@gmail.com on 18 Sep 2009 at 5:25