Complain about landuse and border glued together

[mkoniecz]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. Download area with administrative border
2. Draw landuse=farmland sharing nodes with it
3. Validate

What is the expected result?

Validator complains about such shared node

What happens instead?

Validator is happy

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

Encountered during organized editing session with newbies, other mappers reported this as one of issues in their mapping that I missed (thanks for JOSM validator for catching some of issues that I missed!

Relative:URL: ^/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2022-04-02 21:06:07 +0200 (Sat, 02 Apr 2022)
Revision:18425
Build-Date:2022-04-03 01:30:56
URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (18425 en) Linux Ubuntu 20.04.4 LTS
Memory Usage: 522 MB / 3974 MB (254 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 11.0.14.1+1-Ubuntu-0ubuntu1.20.04, Ubuntu, OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM
Look and Feel: javax.swing.plaf.metal.MetalLookAndFeel
Screen: :0.0 1920×1200 (scaling 1.00×1.00) :0.1 1920×1200 (scaling 1.00×1.00)
Maximum Screen Size: 1920×1200
Best cursor sizes: 16×16→16×16, 32×32→32×32
Environment variable LANG: en_US.UTF-8
System property file.encoding: UTF-8
System property sun.jnu.encoding: UTF-8
Locale info: en_US
Numbers with default locale: 1234567890 -> 1234567890
Desktop environment: LXQt
Java package: openjdk-11-jre:amd64-11.0.14.1+1-0ubuntu1~20.04
Java ATK Wrapper package: libatk-wrapper-java:all-0.37.1-1
libcommons-logging-java: libcommons-logging-java:all-1.2-2
fonts-noto: fonts-noto:-
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
+ buildings_tools (35951)
+ measurement (35893)
+ reverter (35893)
+ todo (30306)

Validator rules:
+ https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Rules/OSMLint&zip=1
+ ${HOME}/Documents/install_moje/OSM software/manual editing and discussions/josm/resources/data/validator/deprecated.mapcss

Last errors/warnings:
- 00624.272 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00624.419 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00624.570 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00624.716 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00624.863 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00625.010 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00625.155 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00625.303 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00625.449 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'
- 00625.597 E: Failed to locate image 'https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/25/Geoportal-josm.png'

[stoecker]

Why should the validator complain. That's a perfectly valid behaviour.

[mkoniecz]

Why it would be valid?

That is just asking for trouble, when someone edits shape of changing landuse and damages border data.

There are extraordinarily rare cases of border defined by river stream, with border changing as river changes course. But I have not ever heard about it happening with fields. Is there case where changing landuse shape changes course of administrative border?

---

Also, it was something pointed by other members of Polish community so it is not just me.

[stoecker]

This discussion exists for years now and nothing changed.