[patch] Complain about building=roof + addr:*

[Famlam]

Currently there are about 50k cases where addr:* tags are placed on a building with building=roof (not to be confused with building:part=roof)

Addresses are typically not located on (in?) the roof of the building, but rather point at the object that's under the roof. Additionally, as the majority of these tags seem to be for amenity=fuel (60k in combination with building=roof), the wiki page of amenity=fuel also indicates one should make a separate area for the roof.
​https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfuel
​https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Droof

Hence, I would propose to add either:

way[building=roof][amenity=fuel] {
  throwOther: tr("{0} together with {1}, usually {1} is located underneath the {2}", "{0.tag}", "{1.tag}", "{0.value}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
}

or

way[building=roof][/^addr:/] {
  throwOther: tr("{0} together with {1}, usually addresses refer to objects underneath the {2}", "{0.tag}", "{1.tag}", "{0.value}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
}

[taylor.smock]

I get where you are coming from, with a caveat that in some cases the building=roof section will be larger than the service building and cover or almost cover the service building (I have a couple of examples in my area, although one is in the process of being torn down and rebuilt).

I'm disinclined to apply the patch for amenity=fuel objects because of that.

You might also want to see how people actually tag fuel stations -- I've seen people put all the tags on the "roof" of the fueling area, so I suspect ​osmwiki:Tag:amenity=fuel does not conform to current tagging practices. This also means that putting the addr tags on the roof makes sense. In some cases.

[Famlam]

I'll close it as WontFix for now then.

[skyper]

How about an informational warning (Others)?

[Famlam]

How about an informational warning (Others)?

I'm in favor, of course :)

[skyper]

use one more placeholder