#15029 closed enhancement (wontfix)
Validator reports warning about "abandoned:highway" + "trail_visibility"
Reported by: | Owned by: | team | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
Keywords: | template_report | Cc: |
Description
The validator produces the warning "missing tag - trail_visibility without highway" for ways that are tagged with "abandoned:highway" + "trail_visibility". However, this combination of tags is meaningful, and at least one renderer (OsmAnd) makes use of it.
URL:http://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b Last:Changed Date: 2017-07-03 00:44:07 +0200 (Mon, 03 Jul 2017) Build-Date:2017-07-02 23:26:36 Revision:12450 Relative:URL: ^/trunk Identification: JOSM/1.5 (12450 en) Linux Gentoo Base System release 2.3 Memory Usage: 4373 MB / 14128 MB (1264 MB allocated, but free) Java version: 1.8.0_131-b11, Oracle Corporation, OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Screen: :0.0 1920x1200 Maximum Screen Size: 1920x1200 Java package: icedtea-bin: 3.2.0 7.2.6.10 Dataset consistency test: No problems found Plugins: + DirectUpload (33182) + ImportImagePlugin (33372) + ImproveOsm (116) + InfoMode (33004) + Mapillary (v1.5.5) + OpenStreetCam (93) + apache-commons (32994) + apache-http (32699) + buildings_tools (33004) + editgpx (33004) + ejml (32680) + geotools (33380) + gpsblam (33258) + imagery_offset_db (33316) + jts (32699) + lakewalker (33161) + log4j (32699) + measurement (33088) + opendata (33358) + openvisible (33088) + reverter (33088) + tageditor (33021) + turnlanes-tagging (254) + turnrestrictions (33088) + utilsplugin2 (33328) Tagging presets: + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Presets/Communication_Towers&zip=1 + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Presets/NewTags&zip=1 + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Presets/ParkingLanes&zip=1 + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Presets/Towers&zip=1 Map paint styles: - https://www.dropbox.com/s/qo3ai47fpv241jf/Styles_Fixme_and_Notes.zip?raw=1 - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Maxspeed&zip=1 + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/ParkingLanes&zip=1 + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Sidewalks&zip=1 - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Surface-DataEntry&zip=1 + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes&zip=1 - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Lane_features&zip=1 - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Lane_features_ryg&zip=1 - ${HOME}/Desktop/Styles_Maxspeed-Extended-style.mapcss + https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/TigerReviewedNo&zip=1 - https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Lit&zip=1 Last errors/warnings: - W: java.io.IOException: Attribution is not loaded yet - W: java.io.IOException: Attribution is not loaded yet - W: java.io.IOException: Attribution is not loaded yet - W: java.io.IOException: Attribution is not loaded yet - W: java.io.IOException: Attribution is not loaded yet - W: java.io.IOException: Attribution is not loaded yet - E: null is NOT valid - E: Reason: cvc-elt.1: Cannot find the declaration of element 'metadata'. - E: null is NOT valid - E: Reason: cvc-elt.1: Cannot find the declaration of element 'metadata'.
Attachments (0)
Change History (11)
comment:1 by , 7 years ago
Component: | Core → Core validator |
---|
comment:2 by , 6 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:3 by , 6 years ago
Milestone: | → 17.11 |
---|
comment:4 by , 6 years ago
Are you sure that JOSM should not warn about this? Is it OK to map trail without marking even highway=path?
Just abandoned:highway=motorway + trail_visibility!=no is not OK, highway value should still be added (likely to be highway=path/footway).
comment:5 by , 6 years ago
Hm, you're right. If there exists really no path/way/street at all anymore then both highway=* and also trial_visibility should be removed. As long as there is still any sort of path/way/street it should be tagged with highway=* (and possible access=*, smoothness=*, informal=yes,...)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility says:
"This is part of a classification scheme for hiking trails."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned: gives as example:
"Subsided former turnpike road in Derbyshire, UK, abandoned in the 1970s as a result of a landslide. Still somewhat passable on foot and by bicycle, so it gains a (new, different) highway=* tag, and loses its former reference number.
abandoned:highway=unclassified
abandoned:ref=A6187
highway=path
name=The old road
"
comment:7 by , 6 years ago
Milestone: | 17.11 |
---|---|
Resolution: | fixed → wontfix |
comment:8 by , 6 years ago
Milestone: | → 17.11 |
---|
My use case for this is mapping a conservation area crossed by a number of old, abandoned logging roads. These are no longer in use for any purpose, but will be visible to one degree or another for decades to come.
For a picture of the sort of thing I'm using this for, see https://imgur.com/a/I0LNm. You can still see the route the road took from the absence of trees or brush. Not obvious in the picture, but highly visible in person, are two parallel depressions left by the tires of logging vehicles.
Tagging this as "highway=path" or similar would be misleading, as they are not in use for travel and their use is discouraged (but not officially forbidden).
comment:9 by , 6 years ago
"as they are not in use for travel" so it is not a trail? So why trail_visibility would be used?
Maybe man_made=cutline would fit? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcutline
comment:10 by , 6 years ago
Yes, trail_visibility makes no sense in this case if it is not "in use for travel".
man_made=cutline makes sense in my opinion.
comment:11 by , 6 years ago
Milestone: | 17.11 |
---|
In 13087/josm: