JOSM - Warning Crossing ways - crossing landuses - MGCP Area Extraction Mine

[MikeTho16]

Describe the bug If the mapper creates a multipolygon relation in JOSM that has an outer and inner ring (i.e. a hole), and then applies the MGCP preset for an Extraction Mine, running the JOSM validator (or attempting to upload) produces a warning "Crossing ways - crossing landuses" even though there is no crossing. OSM's JOSM (version 16812 - a bit old, I can try with the latest and update the ticket. Just tried with OSM JOSM version 17428, which is the latest tested version, and it, like the older version of OSM JOSM, does not have this problem) does not produce the same warning for the tag landuse=surface_mining, which is what the schema switcher translates FCODE=AA010 to. Also, a multipolygon that does not have an inner ring, does not seem to have this same issue.

Also Applies to

• AA012 Quarry

To Reproduce

1. Open JOSM
2. Download an area
3. Make sure schema is set to "MGCP"
4. Draw a closed way
5. Draw another closed way, this one completely within the first.
6. Select both ways
7. Tools - > Create Multipolygon
8. In the tags panel, JOSM displays:
   
9. Press F3 on keyboard
10. Search for "mine"
11. Click on "MGCP/Culture/Extraction/Extraction Mine"
    
12. Click the "Select" button
13. In the preset dialog box, click "Apply Preset"
14. Click the "Validation" button:
15. JOSM displays:
16. re-adding the tag type=multipolygon fixes the error, but not the warning.
17. Click on the edit button that is part of the Relations panel in JOSM:
18. Add the tag type=multipolygon :
19. Click "OK"
20. Again, click the validation button
21. in the Validation panel, JOSM displays:
22. Here is a screenshot of the ways, they do not cross:

Expected behavior

• No warning about crossing ways when mapping a area Extraction Mine with a multipolygon having a hole.

Screenshots

• Embedded in “To Reproduce” section above.

Desktop (please complete the following information):

• OS: Ubuntu 16.04
• JOSM: 9.2.1

Smartphone (please complete the following information):

• N/A

Additional context

• None

[MikeTho16]

I tested again today, behavior is different, but still not quite correct. See #4582 for a description of what happens.