[PATCH] handling `construction:highway`

[mkoniecz]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. Create way with construction:highway=tertiary
2. Create way with highway=construction construction=tertiary
3. Run validator

What is the expected result?

Either it is rendered like highway=construction construction=tertiary or validator offers to fix it to highway=tertiary (or validator offers to add highway=tertiary). Or highway=construction construction=tertiary is migrated to construction:highway=tertiary.

Or maybe migrating to highway=construction only where it has broad support (road types)?

What happens instead?

Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.

​https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/construction%3Ahighway#overview

Note that iD developers plan (proposed?) to start considering highway=construction as deprecated and start using construction:highway in ​https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6168

URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2019-04-03 00:33:43 +0200 (Wed, 03 Apr 2019)
Build-Date:2019-04-03 01:30:50
Revision:14954
Relative:URL: ^/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (14954 en) Linux Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS
Memory Usage: 435 MB / 869 MB (277 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.8.0_201-b09, Oracle Corporation, Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM
Screen: :0.0 1920x1080
Maximum Screen Size: 1920x1080
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
+ OpeningHoursEditor (34867)
+ buildings_tools (34904)
+ continuosDownload (82)
+ imagery_offset_db (34867)
+ measurement (34867)
+ reverter (34961)
+ todo (30306)

Validator rules:
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/josm/data/validator/deprecated.mapcss
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/josm/data/validator/unnecessary.mapcss
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/josm/data/validator/combinations.mapcss

Last errors/warnings:
- W: No configuration settings found.  Using hardcoded default values for all pools.
- W: Failed to add ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/josm/data/validator/unnecessary.mapcss to tag checker
- W: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Expecting n/node/w/way/r/relation/area, but got '"node'

[reichg]

Could we start a discussion this? Seems like construction:highway=* is not used very often? Only ~3k usages

[skyper]

Life cycle tags are no problem according to the wiki (​Key:construction), building, highway, railway and landuse use *=construction and construction=*.

The advantage of the lifecycle tag is that you can all tags in the same way like:

access=private
construction:highway=path
construction:foot=designated
construction:bicycle=designated
construction:vehicle=no
construction:lit=yes
construction:surface=paving_stones
foot=destination
highway=construction
surface=unpaved

Atm, only highway and railway have support of construction=* in defaultpresets. The other two need an own preset and the matching of railway=construction needs to be recheck.

Long story short, how about warnings about construction:[building|highway|railway|landuse]=* without construction=* AND *=construction plus a warning about *=construction without construction=*. An autofix could be added but I would not remove construction:*=*.

*["construction:building"][!building][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][!highway][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][!railway][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][!landuse][!construction] {
  ThrowWarning: tr("{0} without {1} and {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}={2.key}", "{2.key}");
  Group: missing tag;
}
*["construction:building"][building=construction][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][highway=construction][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][railway=construction][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][landuse=construction][!construction] {
  ThrowWarning: tr("{1} with {0} but without {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}", "{2.key}");
  Group: missing tag;
}

[reichg]

Replying to skyper:

Life cycle tags are no problem according to the wiki (​Key:construction), building, highway, railway and landuse use *=construction and construction=*.

The advantage of the lifecycle tag is that you can all tags in the same way like:

access=private
construction:highway=path
construction:foot=designated
construction:bicycle=designated
construction:vehicle=no
construction:lit=yes
construction:surface=paving_stones
foot=destination
highway=construction
surface=unpaved

Atm, only highway and railway have support of construction=* in defaultpresets. The other two need an own preset and the matching of railway=construction needs to be recheck.

Long story short, how about warnings about construction:[building|highway|railway|landuse]=* without construction=* AND *=construction plus a warning about *=construction without construction=*. An autofix could be added but I would not remove construction:*=*.

*["construction:building"][!building][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][!highway][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][!railway][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][!landuse][!construction] {
  ThrowWarning: tr("{0} without {1} and {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}={2.key}", "{2.key}");
  Group: missing tag;
}
*["construction:building"][building=construction][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][highway=construction][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][railway=construction][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][landuse=construction][!construction] {
  ThrowWarning: tr("{1} with {0} but without {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}", "{2.key}");
  Group: missing tag;
}

Yeah I can get behind this addition.

so for:

*["construction:building"][!building][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][!highway][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][!railway][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][!landuse][!construction] {
  ThrowWarning: tr("{0} without {1} and {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}={2.key}", "{2.key}");
  Group: missing tag;

does !building, !highway, !railway, !landuse not also need to be !building=construction, !highway=construction, !railway=construction, and !landuse=construction like the second part of conditions?

[reichg]

Having an issue catching [construction:*]. I have tried ["construction:*"], [/^construction:*$/], and [construction:*]. Is there a trick for the lifecycle prefix?

[skyper]

Replying to reichg:

Yeah I can get behind this addition.

so for:

*["construction:building"][!building][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][!highway][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][!railway][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][!landuse][!construction] {
  ThrowWarning: tr("{0} without {1} and {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}={2.key}", "{2.key}");
  Group: missing tag;

does !building, !highway, !railway, !landuse not also need to be !building=construction, !highway=construction, !railway=construction, and !landuse=construction like the second part of conditions?

Good point. What to do with conflicting tags with a different value than construction in primary tag but a present construction=* and/or construction:*=*. The later is probably valid for any object not just for the four and even for any lifecycle prefix.

Replying to reichg:

Having an issue catching [construction:*]. I have tried ["construction:*"], [/^construction:*$/], and [construction:*]. Is there a trick for the lifecycle prefix?

The star * is only a multiplier (arithmetic operator). An expression in front of it is needed. Right now, you are looking for zero to infinity colon : behind the letters.
A dot . is the expression for everything, e.g. [/^construction:.*$/] should do the trick, see ​https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/regex/pre_char_classes.html

Not sure about this case, but sometimes, the eval expressions, regexp_test(), regexp_match() and tag_regex(), are the better choices/options, especially regarding autofix.

[skyper]

Found some more cases to warn about for construction=*, see #20960.

[reichg]

The star * is only a multiplier (arithmetic operator). An expression in front of it is needed. Right now, you are looking for zero to infinity colon : behind the letters.
A dot . is the expression for everything, e.g. [/^construction:.*$/] should do the trick, see ​https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/regex/pre_char_classes.html

Yeah I just meant I couldn't get any of the following mapcss rules to be picked up by the validator. I tried giving a way the construction:highway tag without a highway=* AND construction=* tag but nothing showed up in the validator. I tried the variations /^construction:highway$/, "construction:highway" but still couldn't get the validator to pick up the construction:highway tag.

*[construction:building][!building][!construction],
*[construction:highway][!highway][!construction],
*[construction:railway][!railway][!construction],
*[construction:landuse][!landuse][!construction]

[skyper]

Damn, sorry, I have some stupid typos in my example.

1. Keywords start with small letter (throwWarning: and group:)
2. I forgot quotation marks for the group name (group: "missing tag";) and the tr()

The selectors work and are not the problem as a quick use of the expression in the search dialog proofs.

*["construction:building"][!building][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][!highway][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][!railway][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][!landuse][!construction] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} without {1} and {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}={2.key}", "{2.key}");
  group: tr("missing tag");

[skyper]

I went on and below is the result. Together with #20960 this should cover most. Last task is to properly fit it into combinations.mapcss​. Please, test:

Edit: Changed the last rule once more.

/* missing or conflicting construction, see #17607 */
/* {0.key} without {1.key} and {2.key} */
*[construction:building][!building][!construction],
*[construction:highway][!highway][!construction],
*[construction:railway][!railway][!construction],
*[construction:landuse][!landuse][!construction] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} without {1} and {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}", "{2.key}");
  group: tr("missing tag");
  fixAdd: "{1.key}=construction";
  fixAdd: "construction={0.value}";
  assertMatch:   "way construction:building=house";
  assertNoMatch: "way construction:building=house building=house ";
  assertNoMatch: "way construction:building=house construction=house";
}
/* {0.key} and {1.key} without {2.key} */
*[building=construction]["construction:building"][!construction],
*[highway=construction]["construction:highway"][!construction],
*[railway=construction]["construction:railway"][!construction],
*[landuse=construction]["construction:landuse"][!construction] {
  throwWarning:  tr("{0} together with {1} but without {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}", "{2.key}");
  group: tr("missing tag");
  fixAdd: "construction={1.value}";
  assertMatch:   "way construction:building=house building=construction";
  assertNoMatch: "way construction:building=house building=house ";
  assertNoMatch: "way construction:building=house construction=house";
}
/* {0.key} and {1.key} without {2.key} */
*[building]["construction:building"][!construction][building!=construction],
*[highway]["construction:highway"][!construction][highway!=construction],
*[railway]["construction:railway"][!construction][railway!=construction],
*[landuse]["construction:landuse"][!construction][landuse!=construction] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} together with {1} and conflicting values plus no {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}", "{2.key}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
  assertMatch:   "way construction:building=house building=office";
  assertNoMatch: "way construction:building=house building=construction";
  assertNoMatch: "way construction:building=house construction=house";
}

*["construction:building"][construction][construction:building != *construction],
*["construction:highway"][construction][construction:highway != *construction],
*["construction:railway"][construction][construction:railway != *construction],
*["construction:landuse"][construction][construction:landuse != *construction] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} together with {1} and conflicting values", "{0.key}", "{1.key}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
  assertMatch:   "way construction:building=house construction=office";
  assertNoMatch: "way construction:building=house construction=house";
}

[reichg]

Replying to skyper:

Damn, sorry, I have some stupid typos in my example.

1. Keywords start with small letter (throwWarning: and group:)
2. I forgot quotation marks for the group name (group: "missing tag";) and the tr()

The selectors work and are not the problem as a quick use of the expression in the search dialog proofs.

*["construction:building"][!building][!construction],
*["construction:highway"][!highway][!construction],
*["construction:railway"][!railway][!construction],
*["construction:landuse"][!landuse][!construction] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} without {1} and {2}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}={2.key}", "{2.key}");
  group: tr("missing tag");

Ah I do not know why I didn't catch that! Makes perfect sense why the validator didn't pick them up.

[reichg]

This patch addresses construction tags.

[reichg]

patch 17607 has been tested for each of the 4 rules. Seems to be working as we want.

[reichg]

Can this patch be merged?

[reichg]

Still need a maintainer!

[skyper]

@reichg
Just to give you some info.
Only Klumbumbus is an active core maintainer besides stoecker, Don-vip, simon04 and GerdP. Some more people have write access but will probably not commit patches except for certain parts. Even the first five usually have certain parts they are familiar with.

Additionally, the reporter and any person who leaves a comment are silently added to cc.

[reichg]

Replying to skyper:

@reichg
Just to give you some info.
Only Klumbumbus is an active core maintainer besides stoecker, Don-vip, simon04 and GerdP. Some more people have write access but will probably not commit patches except for certain parts. Even the first five usually have certain parts they are familiar with.

Additionally, the reporter and any person who leaves a comment are silently added to cc.

This is good to know! Thanks!

[reichg]

Can we get this merged please?

[Don-vip]

In 18103/josm:

fix #17607 - construction:highway validation (patch by reichg)

[skyper]

Should some nodes be excluded from these rules? See #22328.