Test amenity, shop, etc connected to highway

[naoliv]

We are including this in our local validator rules.
Is it also interesting to have it in JOSM?

way[highway] > node[amenity],
way[highway] > node[building],
way[highway] > node[leisure],
way[highway] > node[office],
way[highway] > node[shop],
way[highway] > node[tourism] {
        throwWarning: tr("{0} node must not be connected to highway", "{0.key}");
}

[Klumbumbus]

This would produce false positives if e.g. a shop is tagged on the entrance node (which is part of the outline of a building) and a highway=path or highway=footway ends at this node.

[Aun Johnsen <lists@…>]

include [!entrance] on the node. Than the footway can lead to the entrance without giving false positives

[naoliv]

Klumbumbus, OK with a test for entrance?

[Klumbumbus]

In 10026/josm:

fix #11128 - add validator warning for pois connected to a highway (modified patch by naoliv)

[Klumbumbus]

In 10030/josm:

see #11128 - adjust validator warning for pois connected to a highway

[Klumbumbus]

(fixed false positive ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/308965171)

[aceman]

For some reason, in our country, tourism=information+information=guidepost is placed directly on the junction of highways (footway,cycleway), not to the place of the pole besides the road.
See e.g. ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/253402650 . Can that be excluded from the warning?

[Klumbumbus]

In 10037/josm:

fix #11128 - downgrade validator warning for information=guidepost node connected to a highway

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to aceman:

For some reason, in our country, tourism=information+information=guidepost is placed directly on the junction of highways (footway,cycleway), not to the place of the pole besides the road.
See e.g. ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/253402650 . Can that be excluded from the warning?

In my opinion this is bad tagging, however I downgraded the warning for tourism=information+information=guidepost to info level.

[aceman]

Great, thanks.

[Klumbumbus]

In 10071/josm:

see #11128 - fix validator warning text for tourism pois connected to a highway

[Don-vip]

Milestone renamed

[Klumbumbus]

In 10231/josm:

see #11128 - don't warn about a amenity=car_weash node connected to a way

[Bjoeni]

Can we exclude natural=cave_entrance as well? That can be used together with tourism=attraction on the end of a path for example.
Or in general exclude tourism=attraction, I can imagine a quite few cases where this can lead to false positives.

[Klumbumbus]

natural=* is not included in the test and tourism=* way end nodes are already excluded.

(Please don't change milestones and don't reopen such old tickets. Create a new one instead.)

[Bjoeni]

Problem in my case was that the cave entrance was part of a cliff, which led to a warning.

Sorry about reopening the old ticket, different communities have different policies... It's about the same specific validation rule, so I thought it made sense.

[Klumbumbus]

As the cliff way marks the top edge of the cliff, connecting a cave entrance to the cliff way is much likely indeed a tagging error.

[Bjoeni]

I've seen more than a few caves tagged on cliffs and never thought about that... but assuming an absolutely vertical cliff, I still don't see a problem connecting them. The wiki just says "If the cliff is not perfectly vertical the way should be located on the top edge", it doesn't say that the way then represents the top edge - it's (in my understanding) the whole cliff, just placed on the top edge for abstraction (like a line for a highway doesn't represent the center line, but the whole street). And then it seems weird to me putting a cave entrance next to the cliff, when it is actually in the cliff. But that discussion doesn't really belong here.

And since this just happens when the cave is part of a cliff and tagged as a tourist attraction, I agree that changes of the validation are not really necessary anyway.