[PATCH] highway=unclassified not showing warning when unnamed

[delta_foxtrot2]

There is a lot of roads I'd consider highway=unclassified in Australia and most of these are named, even if the data isn't in OSM's database yet.

It's be nice to show these, except if access=private

To achieve this one solution I came up with was in tests/UntaggedWay.java at line 48 I added the following line:

NAMED_WAYS.add( "unclassified" );

Then at line 74 I changed this:

                    boolean hasName = false;
                    for( String key : w.keySet())
                    {
                        hasName = key.startsWith("name:") || key.endsWith("_name") || key.endsWith("_ref");
                        if( hasName )
                            break;
                    }

                    if( !hasName )

to be:

                    boolean isPrivate = false;
                    boolean hasName = false;
                    for( String key : w.keySet())
                    {
                        hasName = key.startsWith("name:") || key.endsWith("_name") || key.endsWith("_ref");
                        if( hasName )
                            break;
                        if(key.equals("access"))
                        {
                            isPrivate = w.get("access").equals("private");
                            break;
                        }
                    }

                    if( !hasName && !isPrivate)

[stoecker]

What are private unclassifieds?

Shouldn't the streets be service when they private? "unclassified" are streets interconnecting villages or towns but on the lowest level (i.e. below classification).

[delta_foxtrot2]

Replying to stoecker:

What are private unclassifieds?

Shouldn't the streets be service when they private? "unclassified" are streets interconnecting villages or towns but on the lowest level (i.e. below classification).

Don't know, but a lot of private roads look the same before/after a gate, and it's really a continuation of the road into properties, especially for farms etc, some are even paved. I'm not talking about residential areas here but rural/farm areas.

[stoecker]

Well, than the tagging is wrong and the message right. Unclassified has been misused as "don't know type" in the past. These cases should be fixed.

[delta_foxtrot2]

If you feel private=access should be left out, fine leave that section of code out, however the problem still exists that roads I think fit highware=unclassified roads do have names in most cases and showing a warning should occur.

[stoecker]

Ah, well, that is different to Germany. Here unclassifieds nearly never have a name.

We need to find a way to have different checking sets for different countries. Something like a country selector button which sets different defaults in the preferences.

[delta_foxtrot2]

Replying to stoecker:

We need to find a way to have different checking sets for different countries. Something like a country selector button which sets different defaults in the preferences.

Welcome to the wonderful world of cultural and language clashes :)

This might be something unique to Australia, I'm not sure, I suppose other countries with large rural areas might be in the same boat. Australia is a big place with very few people, so a lot of the roads are smaller as a result, but they're still named.

[stoecker]

Hmm, this unnamed check could be replaced by simple rules in the tagchecker.cfg and removed totally.

[delta_foxtrot2]

validator.patch

[delta_foxtrot2]

Yes, this is perfectly fine.

[stoecker]

In ​[o16437].

[rickmastfan67]

I hate somewhat reviving old threads, but, I happen to have a question about this and decided not to create a new ticket (at the moment).

I was just doing some editing and had to tag some "unclassified" roads that weren't "residential" or "service" type roads. When I went to upload them to the database, they didn't throw up any validation errors for being "unnamed" like residential roads do (I don't live in the area I did the edit, so I can't go and check the roads names, hence unnamed at this time).

Is there a possible regression here from when the validator was imported into JOSM? Because we have a lot of rural areas here in the USA that residential tags don't work and they aren't service roads either (or even tracks), just leaving the unclassified tag to be used to define them.

Repository Root: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn
Build-Date: 2011-06-19 01:31:39
Last Changed Author: stoecker
Revision: 4143
Repository UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
URL: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Last Changed Date: 2011-06-19 00:18:54 +0200 (Sun, 19 Jun 2011)
Last Changed Rev: 4143

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (4143 en)
Memory Usage: 122 MB / 3640 MB (91 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.6.0_26, Sun Microsystems Inc., Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM
Operating system: Windows 7

[stoecker]

This is an INFO-level warning. Unless you turn them on, you wont see them.

[rickmastfan67]

Ah, got ya. Good thing I didn't open a separate ticket then. :)