1ec5
commented
1 year ago With a path, I could map a "trail_visibility=no" path across the meadow, but why should I do that? With a track, no such work around on the ground facts exists.
The main argument in favor would be routability, which is the point of this validation rule. In some contexts, that would be a useful reminder even for walking paths or trails. But obviously routing in the context you describe would be marginally useful or completely pointless.
I also trigger this warning frequently whenever I map a small footbridge over a creek or onto an island in a pond that’s otherwise surrounded by a grassy field that no one would traverse linearly.
This paved footpath is located outside someone’s house in the middle of a Louisiana bayou (swamp), accessible only by airboat:
I write that, because recently, very pronounced paths that I mapped, certainly not created by the sheep, got deleted from the data, highly likely by just clicking a validator suggestion by a teenage kid.
On the one hand, validator warnings are just warnings; there are always false positives and that’s why there’s an Ignore button. But as you’ve discovered, people instinctively react to warnings by wanting to resolve them, especially when tools like How Did You Contribute? inappropriately count ignored warnings against their permanent record. Sometimes this response is productive, but sometimes it’s counterproductive.
I think there needs to be some way to tag a way as intentionally disconnected from the wider routing network. Clicking the Ignore button would add that tag and inexperienced mappers coming along later won’t be tempted to “fix” them. Would it be appropriate to use noexit=yes for this purpose, or do we need a different tag that’s less definitive-sounding?
URL
No response
How to reproduce the issue?
The validation error should be reconsiderd, at least when applying to paths and tracks. Imagine a track that goes onto some meadow, becoming invisible both on the ground and from the aerial, and then continuing into a forest on the other side. With a path, I could map a "trail_visibility=no" path across the meadow, but why should I do that? With a track, no such work around on the ground facts exists.
I write that, because recently, very pronounced paths that I mapped, certainly not created by the sheep, got deleted from the data, highly likely by just clicking a validator suggestion by a teenage kid.
-- No idea, if and how this relates to #8758.
Screenshot(s) or anything else?
No response
Which deployed environments do you see the issue in?
No response
What version numbers does this issue effect?
No response
Which browsers are you seeing this problem on?
No response