warn for key:signed != yes/no

[marc_marc]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. create an object power=substation
2. add by mistake add name:signed=foo ref:signed=bar (autocompletion sometime for name and ref)
3. run the validator

What is the expected result?

a warning about the fact that :signed value is yes/no (meaning : the fact that the key isn't signed on the ground)

What happens instead?

no info about this issue in the validator

Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.

URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2022-10-10 21:15:56 +0200 (Mon, 10 Oct 2022)
Build-Date:2022-10-11 01:30:58
Revision:18571
Relative:URL: ^/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (18571 fr) Linux CentOS Linux release 7.9.2009 (Core)
Memory Usage: 356 MB / 1717 MB (137 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.8.0_345-b01, Red Hat, Inc., OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM
Look and Feel: javax.swing.plaf.metal.MetalLookAndFeel
Screen: :0.0 1600×900 (scaling 1.00×1.00)
Maximum Screen Size: 1600×900
Best cursor sizes: 16×16→16×16, 32×32→32×32
Environment variable LANG: fr.utf8
System property file.encoding: UTF-8
System property sun.jnu.encoding: UTF-8
Locale info: fr
Numbers with default locale: 1234567890 -> 1234567890
Desktop environment: GNOME-Classic:GNOME
Java package: java-1.8.0-openjdk:x86_64-1.8.0.345.b01
WebStart package: icedtea-web:x86_64-1.7.1
VM arguments: [-Dicedtea-web.bin.name=javaws.itweb, -Dicedtea-web.bin.location=/usr/bin/javaws.itweb]
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
+ ImproveOsm (224)
+ Mapillary (2.0.0)
+ apache-commons (36003)
+ apache-http (35924)
+ areaselector
+ austriaaddresshelper (1597341117)
+ conflation (0.6.9)
+ continuosDownload (105)
+ ejml (35924)
+ geotools (36024)
+ jackson (36006)
+ jaxb (35952)
+ jna (36005)
+ jts (36004)
+ log4j (36007)
+ opendata (36025)
+ pt_assistant (1ff2e15)
+ reverter (36011)
+ scripting
+ todo (30306)
+ utilsplugin2 (36011)
+ wikipedia (605)

Tagging presets:
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Presets/Leaftype&zip=1
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Presets/Light_sources&zip=1
+ https://raw.github<user.name>content.com/Heiner-Sch/JOSM-preset-trees-Europe/master/JOSM-Preset_Trees.xml

Map paint styles:
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/PublicTransport&zip=1
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Landcover&zip=1

Validator rules:
+ https://github.com/Jungle-Bus/transport_mapcss/raw/gh-pages/transport.validator.zip
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Rules/KeepRight&zip=1
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Rules/SuspiciousSwimming_Pool&zip=1
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Rules/SourceObjectTag&zip=1
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Rules/QAToolInspiredValidations&zip=1

Last errors/warnings:
- 00014.631 W: Le greffon scripting nécessite la version Java 11. La version actuelle de Java est 8. Vous devez mettre à jour Java pour utiliser ce greffon.
- 00014.636 W: Le greffon areaselector nécessite la version Java 11. La version actuelle de Java est 8. Vous devez mettre à jour Java pour utiliser ce greffon.

[Klumbumbus]

I don't think this is really needed because the number of "bad" values is very low:

• name:signed: 9 out of 10.367
• ref:signed: 5 out of 1.179
• the most used *:signed tag maxweight:signed: 39 out of 42.602

[taylor.smock]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

I don't think this is really needed because the number of "bad" values is very low:

Is this a WONTFIX?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to taylor.smock:

Is this a WONTFIX?

To me with the current low numbers, yes. Unless e.g. someone always fixes hundred of cases every week.

[taylor.smock]

Fair enough.

@marc_marc: If this becomes a problem, feel free to reopen this ticket. With that said, this feels like a tag that is added by surveying tools (like StreetComplete), so it is highly unlikely to be entered incorrectly.

[marc_marc]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

Replying to taylor.smock:

Is this a WONTFIX?

To me with the current low numbers, yes. Unless e.g. someone always fixes hundred of cases every week.

hundred no, but it was by writing case after case to each contributor to inform and educate them that I discovered that the problem was occurring because of the autocompletion of the key and not because of one or two users misunderstanding its use.
Hence the fact that I thought a test would help herald the problem (because I'm not going to do the manual validator that points this out to users for new cases)

[marc_marc]

Replying to taylor.smock:

it is highly unlikely to be entered incorrectly.

example of a user who entered it incorrectly
​https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124410763

[taylor.smock]

This might be related to #21227 then ("Too many autocomplete suggestions for roles in relation editor").

We should probably prefer autocomplete suggestions that are part of the preset for the object. We probably have a pre-existing ticket for that, but I'd have to try and find it.