[PATCH] skip "shop node connected to a highway" for highway=corridor

[mkoniecz]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. Download ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/905029645 area
2. Select ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/905029645
3. Run validator

What is the expected result?

No complaints

What happens instead?

"shop node connected to a highway"

Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.

Yes, I would not tag this way.

Yes, there is some insane tagging in that area.

Yes, it can be valid warning for highway=footway.

But why complain here?

See ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1334893464 for more invalid complaints

Relative:URL: ^/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2021-01-21 23:33:21 +0100 (Thu, 21 Jan 2021)
Revision:17474
Build-Date:2021-01-22 02:30:49
URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (17474 en) Linux Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS
Memory Usage: 2089 MB / 3974 MB (286 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 11.0.9.1+1-Ubuntu-0ubuntu1.20.04, Ubuntu, OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM
Look and Feel: javax.swing.plaf.metal.MetalLookAndFeel
Screen: :0.0 1920×1080 (scaling 1.00×1.00)
Maximum Screen Size: 1920×1080
Best cursor sizes: 16×16→16×16, 32×32→32×32
Desktop environment: LXQt
Java package: openjdk-11-jre:amd64-11.0.9.1+1-0ubuntu1~20.04
Java ATK Wrapper package: libatk-wrapper-java:all-0.37.1-1
Environment variable LANG: en_US.UTF-8
libcommons-logging-java: libcommons-logging-java:all-1.2-2
fonts-noto: fonts-noto:-
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
+ buildings_tools (35669)
+ reverter (35688)
+ todo (30306)

Validator rules:
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Rules/OSMLint&zip=1
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/manual editing and discussions/josm/resources/data/validator/deprecated.mapcss

Last errors/warnings:
- 69603.311 W: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server
- 69603.312 W: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server
- 69605.293 W: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server
- 69605.294 W: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server
- 87726.423 W: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Unexpected end of file from server
- 89810.577 W: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
- 89810.581 E: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
- 92043.428 W: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
- 92043.428 W: Already here java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
- 92043.430 E: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: Socket closed. Cause: java.net.SocketException: Socket closed

[GerdP]

Is the shop active on/in the middle of the corridor? If not I see no special case here.

[mkoniecz]

The corridor leads to a shop (shop was still mapped as a node, without micromapping of interior aisles).

This representation ads a bit of info by allowing to clearly assign shop to entrance. I would not bother with such mapping, but deleting this just because validator complains seems to be a poor practice.

[reichg]

so are there any changes that should be made here?

[reichg]

Since the ​entrance to the shop is mapped with a node on the other end of ​this way is it necessary to have the corridor or simply just have the shop node exclusively without the corridor?

Wouldn't the shop mapping be cleaner without the "indoor mapping" or walkways within certain buildings? Seems cleaner to have an entrance node and then an exclusive floating node for the shop node. Then again I do not know what kind of support OSM desires for this.

[reichg]

Any update on this?

[mdk]

Maybe an example file will clarify this issue.

[mkoniecz]

Since the ​entrance to the shop is mapped with a node on the other end of ​this way is it necessary to have the corridor or simply just have the shop node exclusively without the corridor?

I would not say that it is necessary, but mapping in this way is not wrong and should not raise warnings.

Maybe an example file will clarify this issue.

Is there anything wrong with examples in the initial report?

[reichg]

remove test for shop node without entrance on same node.

[reichg]

Does patch 20465_v1 satisfy this concern?

[mkoniecz]

shop attached to highway=primary still would be wrong, not sure is it a common problem

would

way[highway][highway!=corridor] > node[shop][!entrance]

work as expected?

[reichg]

Replying to mkoniecz:

shop attached to highway=primary still would be wrong, not sure is it a common problem

would

way[highway][highway!=corridor] > node[shop][!entrance]

work as expected?

Ah, that is right. This ticket is only worried about highway=corridor and shop.

[reichg]

So all of the warnings for shop node connected to a highway (7 more in that area at least) that have a shop node connected to highway=footway are valid warnings as expressed in the ticket description?

[reichg]

just added highway!=corridor for parent way.

[reichg]

Is this how simple the patch needs to be?

way[highway][highway!=corridor] > node[shop][!entrance]

[skyper]

Likely, yes, that simple

[Don-vip]

In 18229/josm:

fix #20465 - skip "shop node connected to a highway" for highway=corridor (patch by reichg)

[Don-vip]

Milestone renamed