Complain about an unreasonably small buildings for types indicating bigger buildings

[mkoniecz]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. map extremely tiny area
2. add building=hospital to it
3. Run validator

What is the expected result?

Validator complains about weirs size, like for island/islet test.

What happens instead?

Nothing.

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

Some 3D mappers instead of using building:part use building areas.

For example see ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/302589861/history ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/302589873/history

"hospital" with 4 or 8 square meters is always wrong and it would be useful to have an explicit warning.

Note that some building like kiosks may be extremely small so it makes only for cases where building tag was explicitly specified and area is below say 10 square meters or area is smaller than say 0.5 square meter.

See iD issue: ​https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1439

URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2019-06-12 22:04:53 +0200 (Wed, 12 Jun 2019)
Build-Date:2019-06-13 01:30:52
Revision:15169
Relative:URL: ^/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (15169 en) Linux Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS
Memory Usage: 434 MB / 869 MB (289 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.8.0_201-b09, Oracle Corporation, Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM
Screen: :0.0 1920x1080
Maximum Screen Size: 1920x1080
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
+ OpeningHoursEditor (34977)
+ PicLayer (35030)
+ buildings_tools (34982)
+ continuosDownload (82)
+ ejml (34908)
+ geotools (34908)
+ imagery_offset_db (34908)
+ jts (34908)
+ log4j (34908)
+ measurement (34977)
+ reverter (34999)
+ todo (30306)

Validator rules:
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/josm/data/validator/deprecated.mapcss
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/josm/data/validator/unnecessary.mapcss
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/josm/data/validator/combinations.mapcss

Last errors/warnings:
- W: No configuration settings found.  Using hardcoded default values for all pools.

[Don-vip]

This is clearly something we could implement through data items (#17842):

• for major building=* values (schools, hospitals...) define a minimum/maximum area on the wiki
• throw warning accordingly

[anonymous]

Is it in any way superior to defining expected area in JOSM validator? In both cases patch need to be reviewed before applying it as JOSM code. Using data items adds just adds an additional step.

[mkoniecz]

Comment above was mine.

[Don-vip]

Replying to mkoniecz:

Is it in any way superior to defining expected area in JOSM validator?

Yes, it requires less work for us, it's an easy way for everyone to improve validation rules, and it can be reused by other tools (osmose, id, etc.)