Opened 3 years ago
Last modified 3 years ago
#20760 reopened enhancement
Private phone numbers and proprietary sources
| Reported by: | JsfasdF252 | Owned by: | team |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
| Keywords: | template_report | Cc: |
Description
What steps will reproduce the problem?
- Add a closed way.
- Add the following tags:
- building=house
- phone=8675309
- source=Google
- Run the JOSM validator on the way.
What is the expected result?
The validator should detect that the phone number should not be tagged and that Google should never be listed as a source.
What happens instead?
The validator does not detect any suspicious data.
Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.
The validator of iD detects the suspicious tags.
URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b Last:Changed Date: 2021-04-01 23:17:01 +0200 (Thu, 01 Apr 2021) Build-Date:2021-04-01 21:46:03 Revision:17702 Relative:URL: ^/trunk Identification: JOSM/1.5 (17702 en) Windows 10 64-Bit OS Build number: Windows 10 Home 2009 (19042) Memory Usage: 989 MB / 989 MB (509 MB allocated, but free) Java version: 1.8.0_281-b09, Oracle Corporation, Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM Look and Feel: com.sun.java.swing.plaf.windows.WindowsLookAndFeel Screen: \Display0 1920×1080 (scaling 1.00×1.00) Maximum Screen Size: 1920×1080 Best cursor sizes: 16×16→32×32, 32×32→32×32 System property file.encoding: Cp1252 System property sun.jnu.encoding: Cp1252 Dataset consistency test: No problems found Plugins: + apache-commons (35524) + apache-http (35589) + areaselector (368) + austriaaddresshelper (1597341117) + ejml (35458) + gridify (1606242219) + imagery_offset_db (35640) + jna (35662) + log4j (35458) + mapwithai (1.7.1.4) + reltoolbox (35640) + turnrestrictions (35640) + utilsplugin2 (35691) + wms-turbo-challenge2 (35562) Tagging presets: + https://raw.githubusercontent.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/main/dist/presets/nsi-josm-presets.min.xml Map paint styles: - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes&zip=1 - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/MapWithAI&zip=1 Last errors/warnings: - 00014.722 E: Failed to locate image 'MapWithAI' - 02346.635 W: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out. Cause: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out - 02346.652 E: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out. Cause: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out - 02346.690 E: org.openstreetmap.josm.io.OsmTransferException: Could not connect to the OSM server. Please check your internet connection.. Cause: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out. Cause: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out - 02346.754 E: IO Exception - <html>Failed to upload data to or download data from<br>'https://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter'<br>due to a problem with transferring data.<br>Details (untranslated): Read timed out</html>
Attachments (0)
Change History (8)
follow-up: 3 comment:1 by , 3 years ago
comment:2 by , 3 years ago
"Google should never be listed as a source"
Question is what a user does if JOSM warns with something like "Google is not a valid source". IMHO the worst case would be that the user just removes the source tag and then uploads the data without a hint about his misunderstanding of the rules.
comment:3 by , 3 years ago
Replying to simon04:
iD ticket: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5850, source file: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/develop/modules/validations/private_data.js
Once again, a too short and miss-readable message. I hope iD only warns about just added keys by the user. Otherwise this does more harm than leading to the correct solution of the possible problems. Simply inviting the user to delete tags is a no-go, in my eyes. What happens if the user did unintentionally delete the amenity key in advance?
There is #15250 about phone numbers but how do I know that they are private and mobile phone numbers are not private? Maybe, the iD developers can tell you.
A test for only contact info without primary tag might work and goes in the direction of #19665, but please no special handling for buildings.
I would not touch the source tag as it is a simple QA test but in cases of violations deleting the tag just hides the problem. Instead communication and looking at CS is needed and likely a proper revert. I doubt that we get all this information in validator panel.
Just my 2ct.
comment:4 by , 3 years ago
Of interest is r17634 comment:10 (see r15040).
So, probably not a good idea to warn on source=google for new/modified objects. It may make sense to have it as a warning for old objects.
follow-up: 6 comment:5 by , 3 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
The Overpass API yields 0 results for the following query, which makes a validator rule pretty pointless
[out:json][timeout:25]; nwr["boulding"="house"]["phone"]; nwr["boulding"="house"]["email"]; out body; >; out skel qt;
comment:6 by , 3 years ago
Replying to simon04:
The Overpass API yields 0 results for the following query, which makes a validator rule pretty pointless
[out:json][timeout:25]; nwr["boulding"="house"]["phone"]; nwr["boulding"="house"]["email"]; out body; >; out skel qt;
Just so you know, you had a typo. It looks like there are buildings with phone/email fields.
[out:json][timeout:500]; nwr["building"="house"]["phone"]; nwr["building"="house"]["email"]; out body; >; out skel qt;
comment:7 by , 3 years ago
| Resolution: | wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:8 by , 3 years ago
What is wrong about building=house, phone=* plus amenity, leisure, shop or craft e.g.? You cannot tell the current use of a building from building=* therefore you have no information if the phone number is private or not.
Let's have a general check for contact tags without primary tag
*[!amenity][!craft][!emergency][!historic][!leisure][!power][!shop][!social_facility][!man_made][!tourism].... { set NoUsefulPrimaryTag; } *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[email], *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[phone], *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[fax], *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[mobile], *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[contact:email], *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[contact:phone], *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[contact:fax], *.NoUsefulPrimaryTag[contact:mobile] { ThrowWarning: tr("Contact tag, {0}, without primary tag", "{1.key}"); suggestAlternative: "add an appropriate primary tag describing the facility"; }
iD ticket: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5850, source file: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/develop/modules/validations/private_data.js