detect railway=level_crossing nodes that are not on crossing of railway=* and highway=* ways

[mkoniecz]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. tag lone railway=level_crossing node (validator complains that it should be on the way)
2. create highway=residential way, join railway=level_crossing node to it
3. 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.

[skyper]

So, do we just need to import the corresponding osmose test?

[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.

[skyper]

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.

[mkoniecz]

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

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to skyper:

a short way with railway=abandoned should stay as parent.

Replying to mkoniecz:

short section of rails across road is still mappable

OK, convinced.

[skyper]

Duplicate of #9297?