Modify

Opened 2 weeks ago

Last modified 5 days ago

#18031 new enhancement

Complain about natural=rock used for large areas and suggest natural=bare_rock instead

Reported by: mkoniecz Owned by: team
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: Core validator Version:
Keywords: template_report Cc:

Description

What steps will reproduce the problem?

  1. Create large closed way to represent rock surface (like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32639987 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375390567 ) and tag it with natural=rock
  2. Run validator

What is the expected result?

Validator suggest using natural=bare_rock instead

What happens instead?

Nothing

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

I am not sure what would the largest rock that is "notable rock feature or small group of rocks, attached to the underlying bedrock" but if this idea is in principle accepted I may research it.

OSM Wiki claims that

natural=rock describes a notable rock feature or small group of rocks, attached to the underlying bedrock, mainly as a single node element.

On the contrary, single boulders not attached to the bedrock are better tagged as natural=stone.

For larger bedrock areas you may use natural=bare_rock.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Drock

Triggered by https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3832

URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2019-08-11 22:00:20 +0200 (Sun, 11 Aug 2019)
Build-Date:2019-08-12 01:30:56
Revision:15296
Relative:URL: ^/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (15296 en) Linux Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS
Memory Usage: 442 MB / 869 MB (105 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
libcommons-logging-java: libcommons-logging-java:all-1.2-1+build1
fonts-noto: fonts-noto:-
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
+ OpeningHoursEditor (34977)
+ PicLayer (35030)
+ buildings_tools (34982)
+ continuosDownload (82)
+ ejml (35049)
+ geotools (34908)
+ imagery_offset_db (34908)
+ jts (35064)
+ log4j (34908)
+ measurement (35051)
+ reverter (35084)
+ 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.

Attachments (0)

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 2 weeks ago by mkoniecz

Summary: Complain about natural=rock used for large areas and suggest narural=bare_rock insteadComplain about natural=rock used for large areas and suggest natural=bare_rock instead

comment:2 Changed 2 weeks ago by Klumbumbus

I guess it could be hard to argee on a value of the area size here even if we use a range between without warning similar to what we do with island/islet (wiki value is 1km² and we warn if <0,5m² or >1,5m² with wrong tag)

/* #12496 */
area:closed[place=islet][eval(areasize()) > 1500000] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} on a large area", "{1.tag}");
  suggestAlternative: "place=island";
  fixAdd: "place=island";
}

area:closed[place=island][eval(areasize()) < 500000] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} on a small area", "{1.tag}");
  suggestAlternative: "place=islet";
  fixAdd: "place=islet";
}

comment:3 Changed 2 weeks ago by mkoniecz

Note that natural=bare_rock can be correctly used for very small areas, so only warning for overly large areas with natural=rock makes sense.

I guess it could be hard to argee on a value of the area size here

Yes, that would require some research, but I would expect single rock or "small group of rocks" to be smaller than 0.5 km2. So warning from something like 0,5 km2 or 0,75 km2 or 1 km2 would IMHO make sense.

comment:4 in reply to:  3 Changed 5 days ago by Klumbumbus

Replying to mkoniecz:

Note that natural=bare_rock can be correctly used for very small areas, so only warning for overly large areas with natural=rock makes sense.

OK.

I guess it could be hard to argee on a value of the area size here

Yes, that would require some research, but I would expect single rock or "small group of rocks" to be smaller than 0.5 km2. So warning from something like 0,5 km2 or 0,75 km2 or 1 km2 would IMHO make sense.

Is it possible to count with overpass how much objects that would be each?

Modify Ticket

Change Properties
Set your email in Preferences
Action
as new The owner will remain team.
as The resolution will be set.
to The owner will be changed from team to the specified user.
The owner will change to mkoniecz
as duplicate The resolution will be set to duplicate.The specified ticket will be cross-referenced with this ticket
The owner will be changed from team to anonymous.

Add Comment


E-mail address and name can be saved in the Preferences.

 
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.