Don't warn crossing administrative and protected_area boundaries.

[anonymous]

JOSM validator raise a warning of "crossing boundaries" when one boundary is tagged as boundary=protected_area and the other is tagged boundary=adminstrative. I see no reason for this warning.

[Klumbumbus]

I doesn't warn for me. Please add an example .osm file.

[GerdP]

Not sure if the sample makes sense but it shows the error.

[GerdP]

fix stupid paste&copy error boundary=boundary=protected_area

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to GerdP:

Not sure if the sample makes sense but it shows the error.

I think boundaries should have type=boundary not type=multipolygon, but when changing your example the warning remains.

[GerdP]

Yes, problem is in CrossingWays.java. I'll have a look at it.

[GerdP]

I think best is to exclude boundary=protected_area from this test? Or do we want to report a crossing between two such boundaries?

[skyper]

Replying to GerdP:

I think best is to exclude boundary=protected_area from this test? Or do we want to report a crossing between two such boundaries?

Only warn if the value of boundary is equal.

[GerdP]

I agree, but for members of relations this is not that easy. The way itself may have a boundary tag or not. The way can be a member in different boundary relations. Working on this ...

[Don-vip]

Just ignore protected_area boundaries. I'm sure there is some cases where several different protected areas overlap each other.

[GerdP]

That was also my thought when I wrote comment:5. OTOH I think my comment:7 is also true, isn't it? Attached patch implements the enhanced test but doesn't ignore protected_area yet.

[GerdP]

ignore boundary=protected_area

[GerdP]

I wonder why we ignore relations with incomplete members here?

            return super.isPrimitiveUsable(p) && p.hasKey("boundary")
                    && (!(p instanceof Relation) || (((Relation) p).isMultipolygon() && !((Relation) p).hasIncompleteMembers()));

My understanding is that we can safely remove it since we only check ways.

[Don-vip]

Maybe just an extra safety, see r6581

[GerdP]

ignore boundary=protected_area earlier, don

[GerdP]

ignore boundary=protected_area earlier, don't ignore relations with incomplete members, just ignore the incomplete members

[GerdP]

In 15691/josm:

fix #18544: Don't warn crossing administrative and protected_area boundaries

• exclude boundary=protected_area crossings
• check also complete members of incomplete relations
• if segments are crossing: collect boundary tags of all parent relations and complain if any match is found