Opened 5 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#18544 closed defect (fixed)
Don't warn crossing administrative and protected_area boundaries.
Reported by: | anonymous | Owned by: | GerdP |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 20.01 |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
Keywords: | boundary | Cc: | simon04 |
Description
JOSM validator raise a warning of "crossing boundaries" when one boundary is tagged as boundary=protected_area and the other is tagged boundary=adminstrative. I see no reason for this warning.
Attachments (4)
Change History (18)
comment:1 by , 5 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → needinfo |
by , 5 years ago
Attachment: | x-boundaries.osm added |
---|
fix stupid paste© error boundary=boundary=protected_area
comment:3 by , 5 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | needinfo → new |
Replying to GerdP:
Not sure if the sample makes sense but it shows the error.
I think boundaries should have type=boundary not type=multipolygon, but when changing your example the warning remains.
comment:4 by , 5 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
Yes, problem is in CrossingWays.java. I'll have a look at it.
follow-up: 6 comment:5 by , 5 years ago
I think best is to exclude boundary=boundary=protected_area from this test? Or do we want to report a crossing between two such boundaries?
comment:6 by , 5 years ago
Replying to GerdP:
I think best is to exclude boundary=protected_area from this test? Or do we want to report a crossing between two such boundaries?
Only warn if the value of boundary is equal.
comment:7 by , 5 years ago
I agree, but for members of relations this is not that easy. The way itself may have a boundary tag or not. The way can be a member in different boundary relations. Working on this ...
comment:8 by , 5 years ago
Just ignore protected_area boundaries. I'm sure there is some cases where several different protected areas overlap each other.
comment:9 by , 5 years ago
Keywords: | boundary added |
---|---|
Milestone: | → 20.01 |
by , 5 years ago
Attachment: | 18544.patch added |
---|
comment:10 by , 5 years ago
comment:11 by , 5 years ago
I wonder why we ignore relations with incomplete members here?
return super.isPrimitiveUsable(p) && p.hasKey("boundary") && (!(p instanceof Relation) || (((Relation) p).isMultipolygon() && !((Relation) p).hasIncompleteMembers()));
My understanding is that we can safely remove it since we only check ways.
comment:13 by , 5 years ago
ignore boundary=protected_area earlier, don't ignore relations with incomplete members, just ignore the incomplete members
I doesn't warn for me. Please add an example .osm file.