Wrong autofix with motor_vehicle=yes and access=no

[naoliv]

Have one way with highway=primary + access=no + motor_vehicle=yes and validate it.

It says that motor_vehicle=yes is unnecessary while in fact, for this case, it isn't. This example means that except for motor vehicles, all the other access are forbidden/prohibited.

JOSM should not warn nor offer an autofix for such case.

JOSM:

URL:http://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2016-01-19 00:43:46 +0100 (Tue, 19 Jan 2016)
Build-Date:2016-01-19 02:33:17
Revision:9535
Relative:URL: ^/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (9535 pt_BR) Linux Debian GNU/Linux testing (stretch)
Memory Usage: 841 MB / 9102 MB (218 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.8.0_72-internal-b05, Oracle Corporation, OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM
VM arguments: [-Dawt.useSystemAAFontSettings=on]
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
- Create_grid_of_ways (31772)
- OpeningHoursEditor (31772)
- PicLayer (31895)
- RoadSigns (31895)
- SimplifyArea (31895)
- apache-commons (31895)
- buildings_tools (31895)
- conflation (0.1.9)
- contourmerge (1014)
- download_along (31772)
- editgpx (31772)
- ejml (31895)
- geotools (31895)
- imagery_offset_db (31895)
- importvec (31772)
- jts (31772)
- log4j (31895)
- measurement (31895)
- merge-overlap (31967)
- opendata (31937)
- pbf (31772)
- pdfimport (31895)
- poly (31772)
- reverter (32005)
- scripting (30722)
- todo (29154)
- turnrestrictions (31895)
- undelete (31895)
- utilsplugin2 (31895)

[Klumbumbus]

In 9541/josm:

fix #12402 - do not warn about unnecessary motor_vehicle=yes if vehicle=no or access=no is present

[Klumbumbus]

While such tagging is technically correct. It is questinable, if this is "good tagging style".
Used on 87 ways: ​http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dQG

[naoliv]

I actually didn't see how many times it was being used, but I was thinking that it should be accepted (regardless of being used, it's valid, like you said).
Thanks!

[naoliv]

And your query should be more like ​http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dQI
Note that there are more cases besides highway=primary :-)

[Klumbumbus]

Yes. However on highways with lower grade than primary it is even more unlikely to be correct tagging.

I think a lot of the ways of your query are tagging errors. I just checked two ways, both with nonsense access tagging: ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/276244757 ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240032614

[naoliv]

Most probably they are wrong.
But automatically removing motor_vehicle=yes (like it was happening) can make them even more wrong.
For example, I know some users here who blindly press "Fix" without knowing what they are doing.
Removing motor_vehicle=yes from a valid (but wrongly tagged) residential highway will make it unroutable.

Maybe this combination could also be turned in a warning, asking the user to verify the way?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to naoliv:

blindly press "Fix" without knowing what they are doing.

See #12404 to maybe improve the situation a bit

[naoliv]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

See #12404 to maybe improve the situation a bit

Good!
And do you think that it's worth to have a warning for [highway][access=no][motor_vehicle=yes]? (or something more refined)