Skip to content
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

Open with periodicity "n" within a range of consecutive monthdays #252

Open
zlant opened this issue Feb 16, 2018 · 8 comments
Open

Open with periodicity "n" within a range of consecutive monthdays #252

zlant opened this issue Feb 16, 2018 · 8 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@zlant
Copy link

zlant commented Feb 16, 2018

Open with periodicity "n" within a range of consecutive monthdays, the range is followed by "/n" (e.g., > 02-30/n)
Using in signs.
odd: 01-31/2
even: 02-30/2
image

@ypid ypid added type: question Meta topic that is not about a bug or feature of the software. status: spec needed A formal specification is needed in the OSM wiki first. labels Feb 17, 2018
@ypid
Copy link
Member

ypid commented Feb 17, 2018

This is currently not specified. Opening an issue downstream (here against opening_hours.js) is not the right way to go since I only implement the specification. Please go though the Proposal process and describe your use case in greater detail because your initial information is a bit rare for me to understand it. Please close the issue for now. You can reopen it once/if your proposal is approved.

@zlant
Copy link
Author

zlant commented Feb 18, 2018

Usage discussed here. And in opening_hours wiki page described (fourth in list).

@ypid
Copy link
Member

ypid commented Feb 19, 2018

Thanks for the input. You are right. Ref to the original spec: https://openingh.ypid.de/netzwolf_mirror/time_domain/specification.html#rule5 So I would say this is already specified and should also be implemented in here then. But before, the current spec needs to be updated where this is currently missing.

@ypid ypid added type: feature Introduction of new functionality. impact: evaluation impact: parsing and removed status: spec needed A formal specification is needed in the OSM wiki first. type: question Meta topic that is not about a bug or feature of the software. labels Feb 19, 2018
@ypid ypid added this to the v3.7.0 milestone Feb 19, 2018
@mnalis
Copy link

mnalis commented Dec 30, 2019

Interestingly enough, it does seem to work in current evaluation tool if single month is specified; for example:

Jan 1-31/2: Mo-Fr 08:00-13:00; PH off seem to work OK for only odd dates in January (Monday-Friday only)!

However, trying to specify it for all year like this: Jan-Dec 1-31/2: Mo-Fr 08:00-13:00; PH off fails to parse. Also Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec 1-31/2: Mo-Fr 08:00-13:00; PH off seems to parse ok, but does something totally unexpected)

@mnalis
Copy link

mnalis commented Dec 30, 2019

Also, OSM Wiki for Key:opening_hours specifies the rule:

Open with periodicity "n" within a range of consecutive monthdays, the range is followed by "/n" (e.g., > 02-30/n)

Formal specification links back to this issue as "Known issue", so it appears it waits for a fix in opening_hours.js first. I think it should be implemented here, so the known issue in current formal specification can be replaced with description and example of usage.

@ypid ypid added status: spec needed A formal specification is needed in the OSM wiki first. and removed status: spec needed A formal specification is needed in the OSM wiki first. labels Dec 31, 2019
@ypid
Copy link
Member

ypid commented Dec 31, 2019

I agree with you. Needs to be fixed in opening_hours.js and in the OSM Wiki.

@rhhsm
Copy link

rhhsm commented Sep 6, 2020

Hoping this will be implemented soon too! I'm trying to evaluate if "1-31/2 12:00-17:00; 2-30/2 10:00-20:00; 2-30/2 Sa 11:00-18:00; 1-31/2 Sa off; Su off" is valid but "/" is apparently not supported. Lots of doctors here in Bulgaria have working hours that depend on the odd/even-ness of the date of the month.
20200905_122149

@ypid
Copy link
Member

ypid commented Sep 6, 2020

Hi @rhhsm, please just use https://github.blog/2016-03-10-add-reactions-to-pull-requests-issues-and-comments to signal your interest. Also, you may want to refer to: #341

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants