#9650 closed enhancement (fixed)
Validate building=no
Reported by: | naoliv | Owned by: | team |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 14.02 |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
I was seeing some building=no here in Brazil and then I saw that there are more than 11000 uses of it http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=no#overview
It seems that it's thanks to iD https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2111
building=no is the same as not using a building key. I can't think a valid use for this nor it makes sense to me.
If you agree, JOSM could validate this:
*[building = no] { throwWarning: tr("{0} is unnecessary", "{0.tag}"); fixRemove: "{0.key}"; }
Attachments (0)
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
Milestone: | → 14.02 |
---|
comment:2 by , 10 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:3 by , 10 years ago
What about something that may look like a building but really isn't? You may want to mark it building=no to prevent anybody accidentally adding building=yes. Of course, I am not sure if =no is interpreted correctly by apps.
comment:4 by , 10 years ago
Is there any key/value combination that is considered to have/be building=yes by default? Then it would make sense to force a building=no.
Example: motorway is by default considered to be oneway=yes (then we don't need to use oneway=yes on it).
We use oneway=no if we want to force the opposite.
comment:5 by , 10 years ago
I encountered it for building visible on aerial imaginery, recently destroyed that recreated by some mappers.
comment:6 by , 10 years ago
Isn't note
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:note) the key that we use if we want to detail some information for other mappers? (say that "this building doesn't exist anymore, don't map it" in note
, for example)
follow-up: 8 comment:7 by , 10 years ago
I've used this on several buildings that is visible on aerial imagery but is now demolished.
I had some drive-by mappers added those buildings before and this was the only way I could think of to prevent it.
follow-up: 9 comment:8 by , 10 years ago
Replying to anonymous:
I've used this on several buildings that is visible on aerial imagery but is now demolished.
I had some drive-by mappers added those buildings before and this was the only way I could think of to prevent it.
You need to use note
and not add building=no
comment:9 by , 10 years ago
Replying to anonymous:
Replying to anonymous:
I've used this on several buildings that is visible on aerial imagery but is now demolished.
I had some drive-by mappers added those buildings before and this was the only way I could think of to prevent it.
You need to use
note
and not addbuilding=no
+1
I usually prefix it like historic:building=*
and add end_date=*
.
In 6788/josm: