add definitions for the structure of 31 relation presets #1538
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -15,5 +15,50 @@ | |
| "terms": [ | ||
| "exit sign" | ||
| ], | ||
| "name": "Destination Sign", | ||
| "relation": { | ||
| "id": "destination_sign", | ||
| "allowDuplicateMembers": true, | ||
| "members": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "from", | ||
| "roleLabel": "From", | ||
| "geometry": [ | ||
| "vertex", | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign claims it may be also a node (in such case can we express that line must be highway= but node may be tagless? )
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. hmm, that's not really possible. I'll just remove |
||
| "line" | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "intersection", | ||
| "roleLabel": "Intersection", | ||
| "geometry": [ | ||
| "vertex" | ||
| ], | ||
| "max": 1 | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "to", | ||
| "roleLabel": "To", | ||
| "geometry": [ | ||
| "vertex", | ||
| "line" | ||
| ], | ||
| "matchTags": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "highway": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "min": 1, | ||
| "max": 1 | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "sign", | ||
| "roleLabel": "Physical Sign", | ||
| "geometry": [ | ||
| "point", | ||
| "vertex" | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -9,5 +9,74 @@ | |
| "tags": { | ||
| "type": "enforcement" | ||
| }, | ||
| "name": "Enforcement", | ||
| "relation": { | ||
| "id": "enforcement", | ||
| "allowDuplicateMembers": false, | ||
| "members": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "device", | ||
| "roleLabel": "Device", | ||
| "matchTags": [ | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. hmmmm https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement gives example of red light camera placed on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement#Example_5:_Distance_between_vehicles even wants to put it on tagless way https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement#Example_7:_Height_check_before_tunnel also reccs tagsless device node
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3524489413 is it valid? What about https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5192079 ?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. i have no idea. I guess we should trust the wiki and remove
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. I guess it depends how this rules should be treated
Because if it is guidance than being a bit prescriptive makes sense, but if violation of this rules should indicate invalidness of relation then they should be more relaxed and more matching what OSM Wiki permits and got used |
||
| { | ||
| "highway": "speed_camera" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "man_made": "surveillance" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "amenity ": "weighbridge" | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "force", | ||
| "roleLabel": "Force", | ||
| "matchTags": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "highway": "speed_camera" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "man_made": "surveillance" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "amenity ": "weighbridge" | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "from", | ||
| "roleLabel": "From", | ||
| "geometry": [ | ||
| "vertex", | ||
| "line" | ||
| ], | ||
| "matchTags": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "highway": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "to", | ||
| "roleLabel": "To", | ||
| "geometry": [ | ||
| "vertex", | ||
| "line" | ||
| ], | ||
| "matchTags": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "highway": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "role": "section", | ||
| "roleLabel": "Section", | ||
| "geometry": [ | ||
| "line" | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -19,5 +19,6 @@ | |
| "radar", | ||
| "speed camera" | ||
| ], | ||
| "name": "Speed Limit Enforcement", | ||
| "relationCrossReference": "{type/enforcement}" | ||
| } | ||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -8,5 +8,6 @@ | |
| }, | ||
| "removeTags": {}, | ||
| "name": "Multipolygon", | ||
| "matchScore": 0.1, | ||
| "relationCrossReference": "{area}" | ||
| } | ||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it is mostly registering my confusion... But is this
areaentry representing both closed ways with area tags and multipolygons?If yes, would adding this relations structure interfere with applying it to closed ways?
https://github.com/ideditor/schema-builder/pull/174/changes#diff-b335630551682c19a781afebcf4d07bf978fb1f8ac04c6bf87428ed5106870f5 has
For relations,so I guess nonrelations should ignore this structure?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, it's used by both
no, the code would just ignore this property for ways. Agree that it's a bit weird, but there's no other way to model it