Opened 23 months ago
Last modified 23 months ago
#22105 new defect
Wrong informational message: Incomplete pedestrian crossing tagging
Reported by: | GerdP | Owned by: | team |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
Keywords: | template_report crossing | Cc: |
Description
What steps will reproduce the problem?
- Run validator on attached sample file with informational level enabled
What is the expected result?
No message
What happens instead?
Incomplete pedestrian crossing tagging. Required tags are highway=crossing|traffic_signals and crossing=*.
Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.
The two footways start/end at that point and do not cross the residential, both leave on the same side of the residential. The code in class Highways
checks only the number of ways, not the direction.
Revision:18463 Build-Date:2022-05-30 10:23:53 Identification: JOSM/1.5 (18463 en) Windows 10 64-Bit OS Build number: Windows 10 Home 2009 (19044) Memory Usage: 959 MB / 1972 MB (110 MB allocated, but free) Java version: 17.0.3+7-LTS, Azul Systems, Inc., OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Look and Feel: com.sun.java.swing.plaf.windows.WindowsLookAndFeel Screen: \Display0 1920×1080 (scaling 1.00×1.00) Maximum Screen Size: 1920×1080 Best cursor sizes: 16×16→32×32, 32×32→32×32 System property file.encoding: Cp1252 System property sun.jnu.encoding: Cp1252 Locale info: en_DE Numbers with default locale: 1234567890 -> 1234567890 VM arguments: [-Djpackage.app-version=1.5.18463, --add-modules=java.scripting,java.sql,javafx.controls,javafx.media,javafx.swing,javafx.web, --add-exports=java.base/sun.security.action=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-exports=java.desktop/com.sun.imageio.plugins.jpeg=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-exports=java.desktop/com.sun.imageio.spi=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-opens=java.base/java.lang=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-opens=java.base/java.nio=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-opens=java.base/jdk.internal.loader=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-opens=java.base/jdk.internal.ref=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-opens=java.desktop/javax.imageio.spi=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-opens=java.desktop/javax.swing.text.html=ALL-UNNAMED, --add-opens=java.prefs/java.util.prefs=ALL-UNNAMED, -Djpackage.app-path=%UserProfile%\AppData\Local\JOSM\HWConsole.exe] Dataset consistency test: No problems found Plugins: + apache-commons (35924) + buildings_tools (35951) + contourmerge (v0.1.8) + ejml (35924) + geotools (35959) + imagery-xml-bounds (35893) + jackson (35958) + jaxb (35952) + jts (35924) + o5m (35893) + opendata (35910) + pbf (35893) + poly (35893) + reltoolbox (35893) + reverter (35972) + undelete (35893) + utilsplugin2 (35970) Validator rules: + c:\josm\core\resources\data\validator\geometry.mapcss + c:\josm\core\resources\data\validator\unnecessary.mapcss + d:\java_tools\JOSM\mygeometry.mapcss Last errors/warnings: - 00000.628 W: extended font config - overriding 'filename.Myanmar_Text=mmrtext.ttf' with 'MMRTEXT.TTF' - 00000.630 W: extended font config - overriding 'filename.Mongolian_Baiti=monbaiti.ttf' with 'MONBAITI.TTF' - 00001.299 E: java.security.KeyStoreException: Windows-ROOT not found. Cause: java.security.NoSuchAlgorithmException: Windows-ROOT KeyStore not available - 01684.685 E: org.openstreetmap.josm.io.OsmApiException: ResponseCode=400, Error Header=<You requested too many nodes (limit is 50000). Either request a smaller area, or use planet.osm> - 01684.704 E: Bad Request - <html>The OSM server 'api.openstreetmap.org' reported a bad request.<br><br>The area you tried to download is too big or your request was too large.<br>Either request a smaller area or use an export file provided by the OSM community.</html> - 01948.729 W: Conflicts detected - <html>There were 27 conflicts detected.</html>
Attachments (1)
Change History (6)
by , 23 months ago
Attachment: | sample_22105.osm added |
---|
comment:1 by , 23 months ago
Keywords: | crossing added |
---|---|
Summary: | Wrong informational message from validator → Wrong informational messag: Incomplete pedestrian crossing tagging |
comment:2 by , 23 months ago
Summary: | Wrong informational messag: Incomplete pedestrian crossing tagging → Wrong informational message: Incomplete pedestrian crossing tagging |
---|
comment:3 by , 23 months ago
comment:4 by , 23 months ago
Adding crossing=no
is just a work around for a poorly coded test. I don't see how sidewalk tagging is related to this problem?
I might work on the code for the test next autumn, or maybe already in August.
comment:5 by , 23 months ago
at least in case where sidewalk=both
is tagged on ways it provides an useful info (as such places commonly have crossings)
Consider adding
crossing=no
if there is no crossing or detach this footways from road (note thatsidewalk
tagging is not present either).