Modify

Opened 7 years ago

Closed 4 years ago

#16261 closed enhancement (wontfix)

[PATCH] Implement check for buildings sharing nodes with res. area or ways.

Reported by: marxin Owned by: marxin
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: Core validator Version:
Keywords: Cc: qeef

Description

Add new check for sharing of nodes. It's useful when doing validation for HOTOSM tasks.

Attachments (1)

0001-Implement-check-for-buildings-sharing-nodes-with-res.patch (4.8 KB ) - added by anonymous 7 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (16)

comment:1 by Don-vip, 7 years ago

Why "Building sharing point with a building" should be a warning? It's perfectly valid and common.

comment:2 by marxin, 7 years ago

Owner: changed from team to marxin
Status: newassigned

in reply to:  1 comment:3 by marxin, 7 years ago

Replying to Don-vip:

Why "Building sharing point with a building" should be a warning? It's perfectly valid and common.

You are right that for many cities it's valid. But as mentioned, HOTOSM tasks very often handle low-developed areas where such pattern means in 99% of cases a mistake done by user. If you mind, I would disable the warning by default and HOTOSM validators will enable that on request.

comment:4 by marxin, 7 years ago

Cc: qeef added

in reply to:  1 ; comment:5 by Klumbumbus, 7 years ago

Replying to Don-vip:

Why "Building sharing point with a building" should be a warning? It's perfectly valid and common.

Yes, this test should not be in JOSM by default (even not as info level).

in reply to:  5 ; comment:6 by marxin, 7 years ago

Replying to Klumbumbus:

Replying to Don-vip:

Why "Building sharing point with a building" should be a warning? It's perfectly valid and common.

Yes, this test should not be in JOSM by default (even not as info level).

Agree. Will it be then acceptable with the change?

in reply to:  6 ; comment:7 by Don-vip, 7 years ago

Replying to marxin:

Agree. Will it be then acceptable with the change?

I'm not in favour of having something disabled in core for most of our users. You should rather implement this check as a mapCSS rule dedicated to HOTOSM, see examples in Rules

comment:8 by Don-vip, 7 years ago

Reporter: changed from anonymous to marxin

in reply to:  7 comment:9 by Klumbumbus, 7 years ago

Replying to Don-vip:

I'm not in favour of having something disabled in core for most of our users. You should rather implement this check as a mapCSS rule dedicated to HOTOSM, see examples in Rules

Yes, sounds better.

comment:10 by marxin, 7 years ago

I can confirm following mapcss patterns works for me. One exception is situation of 2 buildings that share a point:

  • data/validator/geometry.mapcss

    diff --git a/data/validator/geometry.mapcss b/data/validator/geometry.mapcss
    index 9dc1831b7..dac71416b 100644
    a b area:closed:areaStyle[landuse!=residential][tag("landuse") = parent_tag("landuse  
    189189  throwWarning: tr("Overlapping Identical Landuses");
    190190}
    191191
     192area:closed[building][building!=no] > node {
     193  set node_in_building;
     194}
     195
     196area:closed:areaStyle[landuse=residential][landuse] > node.node_in_building {
     197  throwWarning: tr("Building sharing point with a residential area");
     198}
     199
     200way[highway] > node.node_in_building {
     201  throwWarning: tr("Building sharing point with a highway");
     202}
     203
     204area:closed[building][building!=no] ⧉
     205area:closed[building][building!=no] {
     206  throwWarning: tr("Building sharing point with a building");
     207}
     208
    192209/* see ticket:#9522 */
    193210node[tag("amenity") = parent_tag("amenity")] ∈ *[amenity][amenity != parking] {
    194211  throwWarning: tr("{0} inside {1}", concat("amenity=", tag("amenity")), concat("amenity=", tag("amenity")));

Can you please help me how to do it for the buildings?
Thanks

Last edited 7 years ago by Klumbumbus (previous) (diff)

comment:11 by skyper, 5 years ago

Ping.

@marxin: Are you still working on this?

comment:12 by anonymous, 5 years ago

No, I left the project some time ago..

comment:13 by GerdP, 4 years ago

Can we close this as wontfix? The suggested test sounds not useful to me. If useful for HOTOSM it might be implemented in a plugin or special mapcss rules.

comment:14 by marxin, 4 years ago

Yes, please close it.

comment:15 by GerdP, 4 years ago

Resolution: wontfix
Status: assignedclosed

Modify Ticket

Change Properties
Set your email in Preferences
Action
as closed The owner will remain marxin.
as The resolution will be set.
The resolution will be deleted. Next status will be 'reopened'.

Add Comment


E-mail address and name can be saved in the Preferences .
 
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.