#10256 closed defect (fixed)
[Patch] "Highway link is not linked" warning for closed ways
| Reported by: | akks | Owned by: | akks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 14.07 |
| Component: | Core validator | Version: | latest |
| Keywords: | validator | Cc: |
Description
[Reported by luiswoo : http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=433643#p433643 ]
Validator says that "Highway link is not linked to adequate highway/link" for the link roundabout
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/74137866
Checking the code tells the reason: only first and last points of the link are checked for adjacent highways.
(which is not logical for closed ways).
Attachments (1)
Change History (14)
by , 10 years ago
| Attachment: | linkValidator.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
| Summary: | "Highway link is not linked" warning for closed ways → [PATCH] "Highway link is not linked" warning for closed ways |
|---|
comment:2 by , 10 years ago
| Summary: | [PATCH] "Highway link is not linked" warning for closed ways → [Patch] "Highway link is not linked" warning for closed ways |
|---|
comment:3 by , 10 years ago
| Milestone: | 14.08 → 14.07 |
|---|
comment:5 by , 10 years ago
follow-ups: 8 10 comment:7 by , 10 years ago
I think the linked roundabout way/74137866 should be secondary instead of trunk_link. only the 4 connections to the trunk are trunk_links.
comment:8 by , 10 years ago
Replying to Klumbumbus:
I think the linked roundabout way/74137866 should be secondary instead of trunk_link. only the 4 connections to the trunk are trunk_links.
+1
But that has nothing todo with this check. Thought there is a special case or even own test for roundabouts. Not sure if they should be tagged with any *_link (new test ?).
comment:9 by , 10 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|
comment:10 by , 10 years ago
Replying to Klumbumbus:
I think the linked roundabout way/74137866 should be secondary instead of trunk_link. only the 4 connections to the trunk are trunk_links.
I think the main reason of trunk_link here is the continuity of trunk network (at least in our country we have an agreement that trunk/motorway(+link) should form a connected routing graph, the same for primary+, secondary+, etc.)
Replying to Don-vip:
The patch looks ok you can commit it :)
Then committing :) It was a long time since I touched tagging or validator, so it is better to be sure...
follow-up: 13 comment:12 by , 10 years ago
After second look: my description of connected graphs was incorrect, this fragment does not actually contain a part of main highway. It can be secondary. However there also one reason to keep trunk_link in similar cases: it allows convenient u-turn on trunk without crossing the main traffic stream.
comment:13 by , 10 years ago
Replying to akks:
it allows convenient u-turn on trunk without crossing the main traffic stream.
IMO this has nothing to do with the classification as secondary vs. trunk_link.
Proposed fix