-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
To/#158 osm model #162
To/#158 osm model #162
Conversation
Did not change |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #162 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 45.15% 45.69% +0.53%
Complexity 222 222
============================================
Files 32 34 +2
Lines 1444 1462 +18
Branches 188 188
============================================
+ Hits 652 668 +16
- Misses 763 765 +2
Partials 29 29
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
*/ | ||
def extractLandUses(ways: List[Way]): List[ClosedWay] = { | ||
ways.collect { | ||
case way: ClosedWay if way.containsKeyValuePair(landuse, landUseValues) => |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed orally: If the "allowed" values provided in TagUtils
are not in this project anymore, the outline of the method needs adaption.
…PowerSystemUtils into to/#158-osm-model � Conflicts: � docs/OsmModel.puml
Proposal for #158
Will most likely need some more extension later on.