Incorrect warning: Bicycle parking should be a closed area

[owiecc]

When tagging amenity=bicycle_parking as a way (which is allowed, see bicycle_parking wiki) iD displays an incorrect warning.

[HttTavares]

Do you think this problem can be tackled by a beginner? If so, I could get on it.

[owiecc]

That is a question for maintainers. I don't even know how the code looks. But by all means have a go at it. That is the beauty of open source. Maybe it is a super easy fix.

[matkoniecz]

"should be a closed way" is true, in all cases mapping as an area is preferable

disclaimer: I implemented gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto#1364 - not rendering ways was deliberate

[sevku]

"should be a closed way" is true, in all cases mapping as an area is preferable

disclaimer: I implemented gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto#1364 - not rendering ways was deliberate

I think sometimes it can be useful to map it as a line.

[Discostu36]

I don't think this is a discussion that should be happening here. The wiki documentation allows bicycle parking as a way for 12 years now. The reasoning is that there might also be bicycle stands that don't cover an area but are only linear (for example, one long bar for multiple bicycles). If someone thinks this is a mistake, this can be discussed on the wiki or changed with a proposal. The ID editor validator should not check if the tags match the preferred mapping style of its maintainers, but if they match the documented community consensus.

[joshinils]

Related; gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto#2711

[Discostu36]

It was brought to my attention that my last comment has a harsh, maybe accusing tone to it. I am sorry about that. But it is very important to me that ID and carto, being presented so prominently at osm.org that they are practically the offical editor and map style of OSM, do reflect community consensus. I do not think that the small number of people contributing to these projects should use their powerful position to establish tagging practices that they find useful, while all other OSM members would need to write a proposal or find other ways to convince the majority of the community for that.

For that reason I think that the ID validator should always only give warnings in clear cases that are not a matter of opinion.

[matkoniecz]

I do not think that the small number of people contributing to these projects

Note that also applies to OSM Wiki (does not affect this specific case, but "must always follow whatever is stated at OSM Wiki" is not a good rule either - often it is OSM Wiki that needs to be changed).

Oh, and in addition "small number of people" applies also to participation in tagging discussions.

I do not think that the small number of people contributing to these projects should use their powerful position to establish tagging practices that they find useful

I would say that is not always problem, specifically it is not a problem when such tagging practice is considered as OK by community. If you develop editor you will again and again run into cases not well covered by existing tagging or where there is no clear practice.

[Discostu36]

I do not think that the small number of people contributing to these projects
Note that also applies to OSM Wiki (does not affect this specific case, but "must always follow whatever is stated at OSM Wiki" is not a good rule either - often it is OSM Wiki that needs to be changed).

Yes, the OSM Wiki should, but does not always reflect the community consensus. But I think the right order would be to first edit the wiki (after discussion), then add the validation rule.

Oh, and in addition "small number of people" applies also to participation in tagging discussions.

Well, yes, but I hope that by including the community forum into the Proposal process, the number of people taking part in it will increase. I also don't think that a validator should/must include everything that was decided in a tagging discussion or proposal. But if a rule is written for it, then it should be uncontroversial.

[matkoniecz]

oh, for an additional context:

(1) when I was implementing OSM Carto rule then it was less clear and I admit nowadays it is clear that line tagging has support from community.

(2) this warning is semi-automatic - noone added rule specifically for this case, but it is in presets as node/area and therefore line rendering is detected automatically as supsicious