Opened 5 years ago
Last modified 5 years ago
#17320 new enhancement
Allow boundary=* to share an OSM way with highway=*, waterway=* and other ways
Reported by: | Hb--- | Owned by: | team |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | tested |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
It is common that an administrative border runs in the middle of a waterway. But if a boundary and a waterway are tagged on the same OSM way, then the JOSM validator warns about "Overlapping ways".
This warning should not show up in case of waterways boundarys.
Attachments (1)
Change History (8)
comment:1 by , 5 years ago
by , 5 years ago
Attachment: | 17320.patch added |
---|
add boundary to default ignore list for overlapping ways test
comment:2 by , 5 years ago
I actually like this warning to find duplicate ways. Is there a way to keep it, even if at informational level?
comment:3 by , 5 years ago
Yes, the patch just changes the default values for preference overlapping-ways.ignored-keys
comment:4 by , 5 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Summary: | Allow boundary=administrative and waterway=* tagged on the same way → Allow boundary=* to share an OSM way with highway=*, waterway=* and other ways |
comment:5 by , 5 years ago
"administrative border runs in the middle of a waterway" - so once waterway course changes then border changes? In Poland many borders are defined "place where waterway was present in year XYZ"
See for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2811296#map=16/50.4143/18.0904
comment:6 by , 5 years ago
Even in Poland rivers and admin borders share nodes. Example: Same river Odra 6 km to south east https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2084184416#map=18/50.37043/18.12533
Without disputing this feature request for closed ways the warning for admin_border on another way should be deleted or downgraded to an information.
comment:7 by , 5 years ago
"Even in Poland rivers and admin borders share nodes. Example: Same river Odra 6 km to south east" - I would need to check it but I am pretty sure that it is a tagging mistake.
Hmm, yes, I would go one step further: in my eyes this test should ignore all overlaps ways where an administrative boundary is involved.