Some more validation rules for JOSM

[naoliv]

Good that you have included #10825 :-)
I have some more rules that we are using here that probably could be used everywhere else (and maybe you could be interested in including some of them in JOSM)

/* is using any other *_name tag but not a name */
*[/_name$/][!name] {
        throwWarning: tr("using alternative name without {0}", "{1.key}");
}

Done.

/* using nomame = yes + name is contradictory */
*[noname?][name] {
        throwWarning: tr("contradictory use of {0} and {1}", "{0.key}", "{1.key}");
}

Done.

/* follows http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/drop_recommendation_for_place_name */

/* when name = place_name we just remove place_name */
*[place][place_name = *name] {
        throwWarning: tr("{0} = {1}; remove {0}", "{1.key}", "{1.value}");
        fixRemove: "{1.key}";
}

/* when it has place_name but not name, we rename place_name to name */
*[place][place_name][!name] {
        throwWarning: tr("do not use {0}", "{1.key}");
        suggestAlternative: "name";
        fixChangeKey: "{1.key} => {2.key}";
}

Done.

/* the highway "name" already define it's own address; it's strange to also have a "addr:street" on highways */
*[highway]["addr:street"] {
        throwWarning: tr("{0} should not have a {1} tag", "{0.key}", "{1.key}");
}

Done.

/* should use building:levels instead building + levels */
*[building][levels] {
        throwWarning: tr("use building:levels instead {0}", "{1.key}");
        fixChangeKey: "levels => building:levels";
}

Done.

/* they shouldn't have a "yes" or "true" value */
*[amenity?],
*[place?] {
        throwWarning: tr("unspecific value for {0}", "{0.key}");
}

Done.

/* lanes* must be an integer positive number only */
way[highway][lanes][lanes !~ /^[1-9]([0-9]*)$/],
way[highway]["lanes:backward"]["lanes:backward" !~ /^[1-9]([0-9]*)$/],
way[highway]["lanes:forward"]["lanes:forward" !~ /^[1-9]([0-9]*)$/] {
        throwError: tr("{0} must be a positive integer number", "{1.key}");
}

Done.

/* destination rules http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination */
/* destination is "Worthwile only if used in combination with oneway=yes" */
way[destination][!oneway?] {
        throwWarning: tr("incomplete usage of {0}", "{0.key}");
        suggestAlternative: "destination:forward";
        suggestAlternative: "destination:backward";
}

Done.

Note that those tests were created for data that we were seeing here in Brazil but they aren't specific for here.
Some warning messages probably need a better wording.

Anything that could be useful for JOSM?

[Klumbumbus]

/* when it has place_name but not name, we rename place_name to name */
*[place][place_name][!name] {
        throwWarning: tr("do not use {0}", "{1.key}");
        suggestAlternative: "name";
        fixChangeKey: "{1.key} => {2.key}";
}

This is already included. See [7697]

[Klumbumbus]

In 7818/josm:

see #10837 - add some more validation rules (based on rules by naoliv)

[Klumbumbus]

/* lanes* must be an integer positive number only */
way[highway][lanes][lanes !~ /^[1-9]([0-9]*)$/],
way[highway]["lanes:backward"]["lanes:backward" !~ /^[1-9]([0-9]*)$/],
way[highway]["lanes:forward"]["lanes:forward" !~ /^[1-9]([0-9]*)$/] {
        throwError: tr("{0} must be a positive integer number", "{1.key}");
}

@team: is this fine in mapcss or better handled in a java validator test?

[aceman]

Hi, what about shop=yes ? I see it is used about 30000 times and has even a wiki page. But we could have an 'info' or 'warning' message about it. It seems discouraged to use it.

[naoliv]

Should building:levels also be tested for positive integer numbers?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to aceman:

Hi, what about shop=yes ? I see it is used about 30000 times and has even a wiki page. But we could have an 'info' or 'warning' message about it. It seems discouraged to use it.

It's often used at amenity=fuel. It's even in the default preset.

edit: but I agree, this is not optimal

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to naoliv:

Should building:levels also be tested for positive integer numbers?

I think there can be half height storeys.

[Klumbumbus]

see also #10310 for shop=yes

[Klumbumbus]

/* is using any other *_name tag but not a name */
*[/_name$/][!name] {
        throwWarning: tr("using alternative name without {0}", "{1.key}");
}

This test produces false positives for:

• old_name
• loc_name
• uic_name

[naoliv]

The object has an old_name but not name?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to naoliv:

The object has an old_name but not name?

A resturant which was closed.

[Klumbumbus]

Or an old industrial building which was abandoned and not yet reused.

[anonymous]

Does feel to me like the right usage of old_name. Maybe disused:name=* would be better.

[anonymous]

Does not feel...

[Klumbumbus]

​way/286295915 was part of the main street "Zschopauer Straße" before the trunk was built in the last years. Now it has become just a driveway without a name.

[naoliv]

Since it's just a warning (and not an error), can't it be ignored by the user?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to naoliv:

Since it's just a warning (and not an error), can't it be ignored by the user?

The most messages are warning level. And if there are too much false positives, people don't trust the validator and start ignoring the whole validator.

[Klumbumbus]

In 7872/josm:

see #10837 - add numeric lanes validation rule (rule by naoliv); fix names validation rule