Consistent definition of ways treated as areas

[Don-vip]

To the simple question "does this way concerns an area", it looks like we have 3 different answers:

1. OverlappingWays:

       private boolean concernsArea(OsmPrimitive p) {
           return p.get("landuse") != null
                   || "riverbank".equals(p.get("waterway"))
                   || p.get("natural") != null
                   || p.get("amenity") != null
                   || p.get("leisure") != null
                   || p.get("building") != null
                   || p.get("building:part") != null;
       }
   

2. UnconnectedWays:

           public boolean isArea() {
               return w.hasKey("landuse")
                       || w.hasKey("leisure")
                       || w.hasKey("amenity")
                       || w.hasKey("building");
           }
   

3. WayConnectedToArea:

    private boolean isArea(OsmPrimitive p) {
        return (p.hasKey("landuse") || p.hasKey("natural"))
                && ElemStyles.hasAreaElemStyle(p, false);
    }

We should have a single one that matches all the the first two cases.

[skyper]

At least the WayConnectedToArea is special as e.g. buildings, parkings and so on are OK.

[Don-vip]

You're right.

[Don-vip]

In 6491/josm:

fix #9440 - Consistent definition of ways treated as areas

[stoecker]

Milestone renamed