Natural and landuse may cross each other

[mkoniecz]

Crossing landuse and natural is likely to be correct - see ​osmwww:browse/way/136597279 and ​osmwww:browse/way/217690839 - part of residential area is with trees.

​osmwww:browse/way/34097195 and ​osmwww:browse/way/163630054 - landuse=forest and natural=wetland, wetland is not subset of forest what is typical situation in many places

landuse=vineyard crossing with natural=tree_row is also OK ​osmwww:browse/way/237151640 ​osmwww:browse/way/253393873

I am not sure what will be better - completely dropping this part of test or attempting to add more conditions

[skyper]

+1 for dropping completely.

[simon04]

Theoretically this could be a test with "informational" severity.

[mkoniecz]

Currently in my region it has around 98% rate of false positives, it is worse than randomly selecting objects and marking them "there is some kind of problem here".

[simon04]

Interesting. In a test area around my place, this test found a single overlap of two forest polygons. You and your fellow mappers seem to be using crossing landuses extensively. ;-)

[mkoniecz]

It may depend on location type - I map in rather large city. Your recent edits are in and around Innsbruck, with population 5 to 15 times lower population than Kraków. And area around Innsbruck is much less populated, used for farming or industrialized.

[mdk]

What about "transparent" areas like natural=wetland, landuse=military or leisure=nature_reserve? They are normally mapped "above" other areas which can be of the same type (see wetland_example.osm​ in #9534).

[simon04]

In 6648/josm:

fix #9507 - Drop validation test "Crossing natural/landuse"

[mdk]

What a pity. Except of the natual=wetland problem and #9544 all other warnings I found where correct.

[simon04]

There was not a single positive feedback in this ticket. My suggestion from comment:3 was unanswered. IDK to re-enable it if that is desired.

[mdk]

I would vote for re-enable it as info - and fixing some problems. But I'm a fan of connecting landuse/natural. I Know that in many regions these areas are frowsy mapped (see attachment).

[aceman]

This touches on the controversy of 'land use' vs. 'land cover' (see ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover). The problem is that some landuse=* in actually about what is on top of the ground (the land cover) not how the land is classified administratively (land use). So e.g. landuse=grass crossing a landuse=forest may be considered an error. But landuse=grass crossing landuse=residential may not be much of a problem. It looks like JOSM does not analyse the tag value and which values are important and which not. So if the test just warns about any landuse crossing any landuse or natural, then the value of it is questionable. But it may be OK for informational level.