Opened 2 years ago
Last modified 8 days ago
#17074 new enhancement
detect railway=level_crossing nodes that are not on crossing of railway=* and highway=* ways
Reported by: | mkoniecz | Owned by: | team |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core validator | Version: | |
Keywords: | template_report railway level crossing | Cc: |
Description
What steps will reproduce the problem?
- tag lone railway=level_crossing node (validator complains that it should be on the way)
- create highway=residential way, join railway=level_crossing node to it
- run validator
What is the expected result?
Validator complains about missing railway=* way (or about missing highway=* way if it is on railway=* way without crossing with any highway=* way)
What happens instead?
No complaints.
Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.
Implemented in Osmose - see http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=10&lat=50.0337&lon=20.122&item=7090&level=1%2C2%2C3&tags=&fixable=
URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b Last:Changed Date: 2018-12-04 01:45:45 +0100 (Tue, 04 Dec 2018) Build-Date:2018-12-04 02:32:21 Revision:14507 Relative:URL: ^/trunk Identification: JOSM/1.5 (14507 en) Linux Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS Memory Usage: 508 MB / 869 MB (287 MB allocated, but free) Java version: 1.8.0_191-b12, Oracle Corporation, Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM Screen: :0.0 1920x1080 Maximum Screen Size: 1920x1080 Dataset consistency test: No problems found Plugins: + OpeningHoursEditor (34535) + buildings_tools (34724) + continuosDownload (82) + imagery_offset_db (34641) + measurement (34529) + reverter (34552) + todo (30306) Last errors/warnings: - W: No configuration settings found. Using hardcoded default values for all pools.
Attachments (0)
Change History (7)
comment:1 Changed 7 months ago by
comment:2 follow-up: 3 Changed 7 months ago by
Sometimes the railway was razed but at that short section where it crossed the road the rails were kept. This would be a correct tagging of a railway crossing without a railway attached.
comment:3 follow-up: 5 Changed 7 months ago by
Replying to Klumbumbus:
Sometimes the railway was razed but at that short section where it crossed the road the rails were kept. This would be a correct tagging of a railway crossing without a railway attached.
We do not support railway=razed
, though I still think it is an mistake and a short way with railway=abandoned
should stay as parent.
Still means that we need to write our own rules.
comment:4 Changed 7 months ago by
Sometimes the railway was razed but at that short section where it crossed the road the rails were kept. This would be a correct tagging of a railway crossing without a railway attached.
In this case short section of rails across road is still mappable
comment:5 Changed 7 months ago by
comment:7 Changed 8 days ago by
Keywords: | level crossing added; level_crossing removed |
---|
So, do we just need to import the corresponding osmose test?