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)
Change History (16)
by , 7 years ago
Attachment: | 0001-Implement-check-for-buildings-sharing-nodes-with-res.patch added |
---|
follow-ups: 3 5 comment:1 by , 7 years ago
comment:2 by , 7 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:3 by , 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 , 7 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
follow-up: 6 comment:5 by , 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).
follow-up: 7 comment:6 by , 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?
follow-up: 9 comment:7 by , 7 years ago
comment:8 by , 7 years ago
Reporter: | changed from | to
---|
comment:9 by , 7 years ago
comment:10 by , 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 189 189 throwWarning: tr("Overlapping Identical Landuses"); 190 190 } 191 191 192 area:closed[building][building!=no] > node { 193 set node_in_building; 194 } 195 196 area:closed:areaStyle[landuse=residential][landuse] > node.node_in_building { 197 throwWarning: tr("Building sharing point with a residential area"); 198 } 199 200 way[highway] > node.node_in_building { 201 throwWarning: tr("Building sharing point with a highway"); 202 } 203 204 area:closed[building][building!=no] ⧉ 205 area:closed[building][building!=no] { 206 throwWarning: tr("Building sharing point with a building"); 207 } 208 192 209 /* see ticket:#9522 */ 193 210 node[tag("amenity") = parent_tag("amenity")] ∈ *[amenity][amenity != parking] { 194 211 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
comment:13 by , 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:15 by , 4 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Why "Building sharing point with a building" should be a warning? It's perfectly valid and common.