[OSM-dev] JOSM validator plugin enhancements (was: JOSM Jumbo patch v8 (JOSM and validator enhancements)

[Bernd Raichle]

Hi everybody,


on , 30 January 2008 19:27:43 +0000,
Andrew M. Bishop <amb at gedanken.demon.co.uk> writes:
 > Dave Hansen <dave at sr71.net> writes:
[...]
 > > Validator:
 > > * New checks:
[...]
 > > * Make OverLapping ways fixable
 > 
 > What does fixable mean here?  I thought that the validator "fix"
 > button would work on overlapping ways but it doesn't.
 > 
 > Obviously if the two ways are identical (in nodes that are used and
 > the attributes that JOSM shows) then it is always possible to replace
 > them with a single way.  In some places this would fix dozens of
 > duplicated ways at a stroke.
 >
 > If the ways are not identical in attributes but they use the same set
 > of nodes (in forward or reverse order) and the attributes don't clash
 > then merging is, or might be, possible.  The same sort of process as
 > for joining ways could be used to prompt for clashing attributes.

I think this should be the result of the fix ...


 > > * Take different types of ways into account in CrossingWays
 > 
 > Can there be a validator check for bridges and tunnels without a layer
 > tag.  This would remove the warnings about crossing ways where a
 > bridge without a layer tag crosses a river for example.

Before seeing Dave's Jumbo patch I already have tried to extend the
validator tests for myself adding tests for level crossing highways
and railways, bridges, tunnels, and layers (using these tests I have
found a way with bridge=yes _and_ tunnel=yes :-).


 > On the subject of layers how about a warning for areas that have a
 > negative layer value.  This is, I think, a method people use of
 > putting areas like forests at layer -1 to ensure that roads get drawn
 > on top.

Good point.  As starting point for areas I have implemented a test
that a way tagged as area or building is closed, which is not always
the case.


 > What about a new tag that can be added to ways to indicate that they
 > overlap another way and that it has been checked to be OK.  I refer
 > here to places where there are two areas that share edges which raise
 > so many false positives that it is impossible to find the real
 > overlapping ways.  This would mean that the second time validator is
 > run the overlapping ways can be ignored.

Mmmmh, I think that we don't need a special "validator:<testname>=OK"
tag for this case.  If it is ok that areas can share edges the
validator test should not include them in the error list.


 > What about adding items to the overlapping ways list only once per
 > group of ways and not once per "segment".  Also adding pairs of ways
 > to the crossing ways list once per pair and not once for each way.

Ok.


 > What about nodes that have tags that only apply to ways (like oneway
 > which is my favourite) or ways that have tags that only apply to nodes
 > etc.

Ok.

What about values not in the proposed set of values for tags like
bridge, tunnel, layer, track_type etc.?  (For myself I have often used
"layer=+1" instead of "layer=1" with the result that both renderers
won't render these ways.)

What about ways and nodes having deprecated tags?


 > Don't get me wrong, I do like the validator plugin.  I think that
 > everybody should use it.  There are one or two things that I see
 > coming up often that make it tedious to use sometimes.

Me, too!  Therefore I have started extending the validator tests two
weeks before, contacted the author, finally found these threads in the
mailing lists ... and hopefully my changes and additions will be
included in the official code.


Best wishes,
 -bernd