Drive-Through crosses Roof warning

[Susurrus]

I was editing a building that has a covered drive-through and got a "Drive-Through crosses Roof" warning. I've followed the Tag:building=roof suggestions and made the roof part a separate area with building:roof and layer:1. The drive-through way has no Structure annotations. See the following pic:

I'm using 64-bit Firefox 65.0.1 on 64-bit Linux and using iD editor 2.14.1

I think I've done this edit right, but iD is warning me here. Is this a false positive?

Additionally the pop-up descriptive text when you hover over the warning says "Highways crossing buildings should use bridges, tunnels, coverings, or entrances. I searched the OSM wiki for "coverings", to see if that would be what I want to use here, but that term doesn't exist in the wiki. So the descriptive text also led me down the wrong road to resolve this.

[sun-geo]

yeah there are maybe some appreciated changes.
btw: the tag for "coverings" is:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered

[quincylvania]

@Susurrus Thanks for the feedback! "Covering" is a sort of linguistic hack to refer to the covered tag, which should fix the warning in this instance. I agree we should find ways to make this less confusing.

[manfredbrandl]

@quincylvania Do you mean the issue „way crossing roof“ should not be reported because it is a false positive? I think that way:

[bhousel]

I’d prefer for these ways to be tagged with covered=yes rather than expecting everyone to whitelist certain kinds of building types as being allowed for ways to intersect them.

[manfredbrandl]

@bhousel That‘s okay for me. Do you agree that „Use bridge or tunnel“ should be extended with „or a covered way“?

[BjornRasmussen]

If the building has layer=1 (a different layer tag from the road), no intersection warning should be created. This is how the JOSM validator currently works.

[bhousel]

I’d prefer for these ways to be tagged with covered=yes rather than expecting everyone consuming this data to need to evaluate level tags for context.

[1ec5]

"Covering" is a sort of linguistic hack to refer to the covered tag, which should fix the warning in this instance. I agree we should find ways to make this less confusing.

(Not that it makes it any less confusing, but I recently learned that these coverings are properly called porte-cochères.)

[Susurrus]

@1ec5 that different from my example at the beginning. That's for an entrance, like a lot of hotels or hospitals have in the US. My example is a drive-through, where there's no entrance being protected, rather it's to protect people who are rolling down their windows.

[SK53]

@bhousel: the problem of expecting covered=yes to be added is that it is pushing much more work on the contributor (e.g. for gas stations & drive-throughs). The alert will be triggered on (I suspect) the majority of existing mapping, which may be confusing for newcomers. (Of course I realise that making a special case for one type of building is a PITA also).

[bhousel]

the problem of expecting covered=yes to be added is that it is pushing much more work on the contributor (e.g. for gas stations & drive-throughs). The alert will be triggered on (I suspect) the majority of existing mapping, which may be confusing for newcomers. (Of course I realise that making a special case for one type of building is a PITA also).

Yes, well I was kind of against adding a validator for years because of the amount of extra work it pushes onto our contributors, most of whom don't know about what tags go with with other tags, and what default behaviors some tags imply.

Our validator does have the ability to offer one click fixes, and we will soon add "autofix" capability just like JOSM, so it won't be much work for users to just click the action item to add the tag..

[tordans]

Suggested next steps:

Adding covered=yes in those cases where bridges and tunnels are the wrong solution seems to be the proposed solution.

To do this, IMO those thinks need to change:

a. I should be able to select covered somewhere on the preset
b. The warning should also list covered
c. We should help users to choose the right solution

For a: select covered on the preset

I think the fitting place is the structure preset area

For b: warning

Current:

Use a bridge or tunnel

New

Use a bridge, tunnel or mark as covered

Once the validation can automatically split ways, there are clearer ways to put this. Example in the last quote of #6192 (comment).

For c: Explaining

Please let at least extend the small gray (i) text with some text that will help me decide on what to do.

The help text on the the validation (i)

Currently it lists options but does not help me decide what to do

Highways crossing buildings should use bridges, tunnels, coverings, or entrances.

I still think linking to the wiki pages here – see #5900 (comment) – is very helpful.

The help text on the structure (i)

Right now the help text is missing for the structure preset (see screenshot above). I would probably also need to link to more than one documentation, since the preset combines multiple tags.

[cserpell]

What about a service highway that is over a roof? How would you solve this with this validation and solution? Is this the meaning of covered=no?

[cserpell]

Look what new users do because of this: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=70707541

A tunnel is clearly not intended, and he added layer=-1.

[quincylvania]

I'm pretty sure this was covered by #6911.