To be fair to Osmose, it makes it very clear on the front page that the issues that it exposes are for consideration only, and not necessarily “problems” that need to be “fixed”.
The squiggly brackets placeholder is onviously not intended, but beyond that, highlighting manhole=unknownseems reasonable (even if it’s a message that is just ignored).
maybe it should be even more prominent - many people use it like it was written “OBEY! EVERY SINGLE SUGGESTION MUST BE FOLLOWED! DO NOT USE YOUR BRAIN”
But not sure what more can be done in practice, there is even this markings as false positives.
The Osmose flag qualification simply means that manhole=unknown could use a value like =drain, where unknown of course a non-value, I’d use yes which implies the exact nature is unknown as is listed in the JOSM preset drop down list.
Similar warnings appear when e.g. adding barrier=yes. Osmose is inviting to specify the type… gate, lift_gate,turn style…, something, so routers can interpret if there’s a way through.
But they seem the actual confusing issue. Since there are other issues nearby, also concerning manhole=unknown, which do not have as title {{0.key}}={{0.value}} is unspecific. Please replace ‘{{0.value}}’ by a specific value. but a title which by itself is understandable to the user.
It should be said that mention of utility=* key in front of many values of this key are relevant.
It’s better to use description=* to simply describe what you see on ground better than unknown as a value which is less valuable. So the warning is relevant too.
If the tags are bogous, then the wiki as (quasi)authoritive source of “how to tag” should be corrected first, because warnings due to taggings done according to description in the wiki seem putting-off/ confusing to the user who just wants to map correctly.
Please consider first, that you can and should ignore some Osmose warnings. That is not a problem, if it seems to be an invalid warning - as said before.
this OSM object a note
