Adds note tags support

[nenad-vujicic]

Description

PR adds support for note tags as described in #5294 Following changes are made:

1. Created note_tags table, connected it with note table (using foreign key and associations), created NoteTag model file and NoteTagTest class with basic tests (PR Adding map note tags - part 1 - added migration script and model files #5323 does this)
2. Added preparing and rendering of note tags in left sidebar using browse/tag_details partial, also, created test with multiple tags added rendering and checking if rendered HTML contains tags
3. Updated (j)builder files to write note tags in XML, JSON, GPX, RSS and feed files and updated test to check existence of tags in each of above files (creation of tag is performed using ActiveLayer)
4. Added support for creating tags at note creation time using POST HTTP request and improved tests to check existence of tags in each of generated files (creation of tag is performed using POST HTTP request). Also, added creating tag created_by, OpenStreetMaps-Website for notes created using OSM website.

Displayed resolved note:

Displayed opened note:

XML output for "opened note":

Displayed note without tags (all current):

Fixes #5294

How has this been tested?

Run tests from workflows, tested creating and displaying notes manually as administrator / moderator / regular user, tested displaying already existing notes (they will be displayed as earlier - without tags)

[nenad-vujicic]

Here are a few more benefits of adding note tags to OSM, as implemented by this PR:

1. Improves notes categorization (by e.g. adding descriptive tags for better organization like "Missing place" or similar):

2. Improves collaboration & communication (by e.g. marking resolving some note requires outdoor survey):

3. Now we are ready for advanced filtering by specific tags (needs development)

4. Improves public outreach (by e.g. adding tags about mapathons)

5. Improves multi-language support (by e.g. adding language in which note description is written)

@tyrasd @westnordost @Zverik @ToeBee @angoca @talllguy what do you think about this PR?

Thanks,
Nenad.

[westnordost]

Many of the use cases covered by this issue/PR are currently solved with hash tags (e.g. #surveyme) and tools are currently made to take these into account. Tools would need to be adapted to support tags as well. (Hashtags are not going away anytime soon)

The advantage of having tags implemented like this properly would be that there could be an efficient API with which to filter notes. (Right now, this is the only advantage I can think of over hash tags and stuff.) For example:

• search for notes created by StreetComplete for certain quest types, to find common issues (misunderstandings, missing answer options) with quests
• search for notes created by certain versions of StreetComplete, e.g. to find notes that where perhaps created in error due to the above
• search specifically for notes that need e.g. survey. (However, this use case would not be useful for StreetComplete, because StreetComplete downloads all notes, anyway)

[nenad-vujicic]

OK, here is another attempt. I made the above corrections and updated it to pass tag definitions as a nested object serialized into JSON, supporting various characters in keys and values.

[nenad-vujicic]

Here is the latest update with removed validation (which allows k and v to be empty strings, like they can be in e.g. this node (@kcne thanks for helping in catching this). I haven't added other stuffs (composite index - this will be part of separate PR, pulling out shared routine for writing tags - somehow this doesn't affect readability to me, but we could pull it out for all elements in a separate PR), but can add them if others request.

@tomhughes @gravitystorm @AntonKhorev can you, please, share your thoughts about this PR and a way it solves the problem? If we want to do it in a proper way, we will need to pass XML / JSON as a payload, but the problem with this approach is we'll either break backward compatibility or would need to create additional route which will work in a new way (this looks a little bit dirty to me and more like a workaround than a proper way). What is the preferred way for you at the moment (the current one in this PR or passing XML/JSON as a payload using separate route) or can you suggest some other better solution?

Thanks,
Nenad.