Incorrect validation warning on waterway crossing of adjacent water areas

[anonymous]

When a waterway=river crosses between two adjacent natural=water areas, or between a waterway=riverbank area and a natural=water areas, a "Crossing waterway/way" warning is flagged.

The wiki documentation for water=river and waterway=riverbank (two competing tag schemes for tagging river areas) both use the same graphic, which indicates that the waterway=river is permitted to cross between the adjacent areas without placing a node at the point where the waterway crosses.

[zelonewolf@…]

This attachment demonstrates the described validator issue.

[Klumbumbus]

I guess this is a regression of #20121?

[Hb---]

I like to see nodes at the intersections between waterways and waterbodies. To make it clear that they have a connection.

But JOSM currently doesn't want to have connecting nodes between a man_made=bridge area and a highway running over it.

[GerdP]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

I guess this is a regression of #20121?

Well, it was expected, see ticket:20121#comment:16, so it was an intended change.

[GerdP]

Replying to Hb---:

I like to see nodes at the intersections between waterways and waterbodies. To make it clear that they have a connection.

Me too.

But JOSM currently doesn't want to have connecting nodes between a man_made=bridge area and a highway running over it.

I cannot reproduce that. How/Where does JOSM express that? Please open a new ticket.

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to GerdP:

Well, it was expected, see ticket:20121#comment:16, so it was an intended change.

Hm, true, I didn't follow that ticket in detail.
I'm not sure if this common node of area and linear way is really needed in the database. ​https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank doesn't mention it and all images on this page don't show such a node. Thus to me the validator warning is false positive.
I just had a quick look at #20121 again. Didn't you agree to not warn about such cases in ticket:20121#comment:10? (At this time n1338999498 was not yet connected to the 2 areas.)

[GerdP]

I prefer to have the node, but I agree that the wiki doesn't show one. The question is if the wiki omitted that node intentionaly or not. The picture also doesn't seem to suggest to glue the riverbank areas together but the coloring shows a continous area.

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to GerdP:

The picture also doesn't seem to suggest to glue the riverbank areas together but the coloring shows a continous area.

Indeed the first picture is a bit messed up there between way1 and way3.
I guess the best way would be to ask on tagging mailing list?

[GerdP]

I hoped to trigger such a discussion as I have no easy access to the tagging list ;)

[Famlam]

But if it is not clear yet what the 'correct' tagging is, shouldn't the warning be removed (or set to info-level) until it is clear?

[GerdP]

Yes, probably better to remvoe it. The current code is indeed not clear.

• waterway=riverbank is not treated as water area
• the "missing" nodes are ignored for waterways crossing waterway=riverbank (as the wiki says), but not for natural=water with water=river

The patch 20352.patch​ supresses all warnings for the given sample file, but maybe too many now.

I think a waterway=* crossing a landuse=reservoir or a natural=water + water=lake should still be flagged, but I did not yet find any wiki about this. I'll try to find out what the common practise is.

[GerdP]

also distinguish water areas (lakes, ponds etc) from river areas

[GerdP]

My findings:
There seems to be no consensus wether or not to use shared nodes where waterwways go through lakes or ponds, so yes, we should wait for a discussion in the tagging list before producing any warnings reg. crossing waterways and water areas.

[GerdP]

In 17447/josm:

fix #20352: Incorrect validation warning on waterway crossing of adjacent water areas
Commit 20352.patch to

• treat waterway=riverbank as water area
• ignore crossing waterways and water areas

[GerdP]

The patch 20352.2.patch​ would flag waterways crossing water areas like lakes, ponds, basin.

[skyper]

As it is not clear, how about a preferences option to enable or disable it.

I prefer connection nodes between linear and area objects on the same level, not only for water vs water/land area but also highway vs highway area, parking area or bridge area.

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to GerdP:

In 17447/josm:

Thanks.
I don't think the value of water=* would be a good indicator to display the warning or not. For example in some cases it might not even be clear if a water area is a lake or a wider part of the river.