"No outer way for multipolygon" reported for relations that are not multipolygons

[mkoniecz]

Example: ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1187331

Repository Root: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn
Build-Date: 2014-06-15 01:35:58
Last Changed Author: bastiK
Revision: 7249
Repository UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
URL: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Last Changed Date: 2014-06-14 20:26:29 +0200 (Sat, 14 Jun 2014)
Last Changed Rev: 7249

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (7249 en) Windows 7 32-Bit
Memory Usage: 247 MB / 247 MB (53 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.7.0_55, Oracle Corporation, Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugin: OpeningHoursEditor (30416)
Plugin: RoadSigns (30495)
Plugin: buildings_tools (30485)
Plugin: continuosDownload (28565)
Plugin: lakewalker (30416)
Plugin: measurement (30416)
Plugin: notes (v0.9.2)
Plugin: wikipedia (30449)

[simon04]

The multipolygon test is executed on type=multipolygon or type=boundary.
According to ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation%3Aboundary, at least one outer role is required. The usage of perimeter is very rare (156 times) according to ​http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/relations/boundary#roles

[mkoniecz]

So - can it be renamed to "No outer way for multipolygon/boundary" or equivalent?

[simon04]

This change would apply to ≈10 different strings in this test and all those strings would need to be re-translated. Is it worth the effort?

[skyper]

Replying to simon04:

This change would apply to ≈10 different strings in this test and all those strings would need to be re-translated. Is it worth the effort?

Yes, as it is missleading ATM and boundary is missing. Thought there is another ticket about it which was opened shortly after changing the type from multipolygon -> boundary for boundaries.

[mkoniecz]

At least I was sure that it was a bogus report (due to a JOSM bug). It is not like #10128 where I complained about capitalization.

[bastiK]

Replying to simon04:

This change would apply to ≈10 different strings in this test and all those strings would need to be re-translated. Is it worth the effort?

It is misleading, so yes...

[stoecker]

What should perimeter be? It is not supported in type=boundary.

[stoecker]

Not disturbing enough to force i18n update atm I think.

[skyper]

Replying to stoecker:

Not disturbing enough to force i18n update atm I think.

Reopen as enhancement, as the message is still misleading.