[OSM-talk-be] Fwd: [osmose-backend] Missing Parent Tag for all highways with bicycle = yes (#1)

[André Pirard]

On 2013-03-24 18:32, Frédéric Rodrigo wrote :
> > It makes no sense.
> > route=bicycle is a tag for a relation, not for a way.
> > It's very surprising that Osmose commands to repeat such a tag on
> > ever cycling way !!!
> > How could we identify a cycling route if all the cycling ways
> > contained route=bicycle ????????
>
> > Osmose seems to be "rather stupid", and decides that if x number of
> > objects has certain tag combinations, all objects that have one of
> > the tags, should also have the others. It does not verify if the tag
> > is appropriate for the object (node, way, relation). But it is still
> > a valuable tool.
>
> It's an automatic analysis based on statistical and an arbitrary 
> trigger at 50 count. I can change the tigger, eg with relative value.
>
> Error was triggered with a "parent" tag like in highway=construction 
> and construction=primary.
>
> The analysis have already a tag blacklist. I can add route=bicycle.
>
> > These tags were used on some ways for some routes: if a route goes
> > over a big square, an additional way is created going across the
> > square.
>
> Really need tag on this ways ? Or add the area to route relation, or 
> just no way at all.
>
> > and I guess osmose wouldn't like untagged ways either
>
> Osmose report error on untagged way not part of relation (with role).
>
> > But I haven't found any ways with both route=bicycle and bicycle=yes
> > though.
>
> I found lot of them here :
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=way(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%5B%22route%22%3D%22bicycle%22%5D%5B%22bicycle%22%3D%22yes%22%5D%3B(._%3B%3E%3B)%3Bout%20meta%3B%0A&C=50.67634;4.60636;12&R 
>


Frédéric, my text you quote above has been replaced by this:
>> I completely change my mind.
>> route= on a way can be ambiguous (in case of multiple routes knowing 
>> and where they go at junctions) and the better place for it is in a 
>> relation, in which case it's optional and not very useful on the way.
>> *But it is not invalid and there's no compelling reason to remove them.**
>> * *
>> **What is incredibly surprising is that Osmose commands to add route= 
>> on ways where there is no route.**
>> **Osmose should remove those warning urgently.*

> There is some choses:
> - change the data
> - black list route=bicycle
> - use relative value on analyser to trigger at higher count.

You should obviously blacklist asap.
But you should also refrain from using statistical methods to invent non 
existing OSM rules.

Cheers,

André.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20130325/1f78842f/attachment.htm>