Opened 5 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#19475 closed enhancement (duplicate)
potential update of validator rule: highway=footway & foot=designated
Reported by: | anonymous | Owned by: | team |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | latest |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
It seems the current validator generates issues when the tag-combination (highway=footway &
foot=designated) takes place.
The warning message is "unnecessary tag - foot=designated is unnecessary for highway=footway"
Example object: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11344525
In the wiki I found places for a recommendation that both tags (highway=footway &
foot=designated) are okay to put them together on the same (way-)object.
Example wiki pages: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway (first example in table)
Also a German traffic sign tool recommends combination of highway=footway &
foot=designated, see https://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/index.html?signs=239
So we have more than one recommendation for this combination and JOSM has a warning against this combination.
This of course can lead to unwanted edit wars.
So maybe you could consider to remove the JOSM-warning, if it makes sense & if the little bit redundancy isn't a real issue?
Attachments (0)
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 5 years ago
comment:2 by , 5 years ago
See also another wiki recommendations:
line: C 7a
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium#D_Mandatory_signs
line: D11
follow-up: 4 comment:3 by , 5 years ago
Strange, especially in German the difference between footway
and path
with foot=yes
vs. foot=designated
should be state on the wiki.
In general, footway
implies foot=designated
and therefore the warning is correct, though, the message could say a word about "implying" like: {1} is unnecessary for {0} as it is already implied.
or {0} implies {1}, therefore, {1} is unnecessary.
comment:4 by , 5 years ago
Replying to skyper:
Strange, especially in German the difference between
footway
andpath
withfoot=yes
vs.foot=designated
should be state on the wiki.
Yes, especially there are more and more users of the traffic-sign tool "Verkehrszeichen Tool" (https://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/index.html?signs=239) and this tool gives the recommendation of combination highway=footway
& foot=designated
as already mentioned above.
.
In general,
footway
impliesfoot=designated
and therefore the warning is correct, though, the message could say a word about "implying" like:{1} is unnecessary for {0} as it is already implied.
or{0} implies {1}, therefore, {1} is unnecessary.
Yes, an update of the (warning) message text would be great.
So far i understand, the JOSM validation message system has a setup of 3 categories/levels (errors, warnings and info's) Maybe the this check for combination of highway=footway
& foot=designated
could be moved from warning-level to info-level?
comment:5 by , 4 years ago
Resolution: | → duplicate |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Closed as duplicate of #19862.
See also another wiki recommendation:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributierung_von_Stra%C3%9Fen_in_Deutschland#Ausgeschilderter_Fu.C3.9Fweg_-_Gebot_.28Zeichen_239.29