add validator warning for tags on isolated nodes, which should be part of a way

[Klumbumbus]

I suggest to add the following validator warning:

node:unconnected[barrier=entrance],
node:unconnected[entrance],
node:unconnected[traffic_calming],
node:unconnected[highway=passing_place],
node:unconnected[highway=mini_roundabout],
node:unconnected[highway=motorway_junction],
node:unconnected[highway=turning_loop],
node:unconnected[highway=turning_circle],
node:unconnected[highway=traffic_signals],
node:unconnected[highway=crossing],
node:unconnected[crossing],
node:unconnected[railway=crossing],
node:unconnected[railway=level_crossing],
node:unconnected[railway=buffer_stop],
node:unconnected[noexit],
node:unconnected[waterway=dam],
node:unconnected[waterway=weir],
node:unconnected[waterway=waterfall],
node:unconnected[amenity=ferry_terminal],
node:unconnected[mountain_pass=yes] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} must be connected to a way", "{1.tag}");
}

(partly based on ticket:9576#comment:5)

Any opinions about this, or more tags to add to the list?

[Don-vip]

Railway=crossing

Good idea :)

[Klumbumbus]

railway=level_crossing
railway=buffer_stop
noexit
highway=passing_place
mountain_pass=yes
barrier=entrance
waterway=dam
waterway=weir
waterway=waterfall
amenity=ferry_terminal

for ford there is aleady a more advanced validator test.

[bastiK]

+1, can you add it?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to bastiK:

+1, can you add it?

Yes. I wanted to wait if more tags come.

[Klumbumbus]

In 7793/josm:

fix #10825 - add validator warning for tags on isolated nodes, which should be part of a way

[Don-vip]

Strange, it caused a regression in unit tests:
​http://donvip.fr/jenkins/job/JOSM/1624/testReport/junit/org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests/MapCSSTagCheckerTest/testInit/

[Klumbumbus]

Yes, I also just noticed it. This is maybe related to #10164.

[Don-vip]

In 7796/josm:

see #10825 - handle dataset properly in mapcss tagchecker verification of assertions

[Don-vip]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

This is maybe related to #10164.

Same issue yes, looking to it.

[Don-vip]

In 7798/josm:

see #10825 - always create nodes with coordinates

[aceman]

Great idea, thanks!

I suggest also:
highway=stop
highway=give_way
public_transport=stop_position

Not sure about some more of the barrier=*, e.g. barrier=gate (I think there already is some warning about those).

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to aceman:

Great idea, thanks!

I suggest also:
highway=stop
highway=give_way
public_transport=stop_position

OK

Not sure about some more of the barrier=*, e.g. barrier=gate (I think there already is some warning about those).

Yes, you're right. We can remove barrier=entrance again, since there is already a ​more advanced test.

We should add barrier=gate to this (isolated nodes) test, since it should never be isolated but is often on the highway and no linear barrier=* is drawn (so it wouldn't fit in the other java test which I mentioned above).

I will check, which values of barrier=* we should add to the isolated nodes test.

[Don-vip]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

Yes, you're right. We can remove barrier=entrance again, since there is already a ​more advanced test.

Could this test be converted to mapcss?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

I will check, which values of barrier=* we should add to the isolated nodes test.

• gate
• lift_gate
• swing_gate
• toll_booth
• turnstile
• full-height_turnstile
• motorcycle_barrier
• rope
• sally_port
• spikes
• stile
• sump_buster
• border_control
• bump_gate
• bus_trap
• cattle_grid
• chain
• cycle_barrier
• hampshire_gate
• height_restrictor
• debris

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to Don-vip:

Replying to Klumbumbus:

Yes, you're right. We can remove barrier=entrance again, since there is already a ​more advanced test.

Could this test be converted to mapcss?

Is a mapcss test the preferred way? (if yes, why? faster? syntax easier to understand?)

It could be replaced by two mapcss test. the isolated nodes test of this ticket and the following:

way[!barrier] > node[barrier=entrance] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} must be part of a way with {1}", "{0.tag}", "{0.key}");
}

[Don-vip]

The isOutsideDownloadArea() stuff would be missing, do we need to add a new pseudoclass?

It would not be faster but easier to maintain: all tags-based tests defined at a single place.

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to Don-vip:

The isOutsideDownloadArea() stuff would be missing

The isOutsideDownloadArea() is more useful for the "way terminates on area" warning. For the barrier=entrance warning this is not useful because:

• I think it's not possible to download an isolated node out of the downloaded area.
• If you move an isolated node with barrier=entrance out of the downloaded area (or create it there) it is an error again and should be reported (currently it is not!)
• If you download a way, which has a node with barrier=entrance out of the downloaded area and you delete the way it is an error again and should be reported (currently it is not!)

[Klumbumbus]

I was wrong. My proposed test:

way[!barrier] > node[barrier=entrance] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} must be part of a way with {1}", "{0.tag}", "{0.key}");
}

fails when the node with barrier=entrance is connected to a way with barrier=* and a way with e.g. highway=* (because only one parent is accessible) and fails also for the example in #9544. So the isOutsideDownloadArea() thing is after all usefull for the barriers test, so I think we should just simply keep it as is.

[Klumbumbus]

In 7807/josm:

fix #10825 - add some more values for isolated nodes test, remove barrier=entrance because there is already a more advanced test