Ways inserted at wrong position of (bus route) relation

[anonymous]

Hello,

I found a few errors introduced by JOSM (according to the changeset "created_by" field) that changed the order of ways in bus route relations. Here are two examples:

1. An error was introduced by positioning ways of the bus route at the beginning of the relation before all bus stops and platforms. I'm not sure what the original purpose of the edit was.

• error in relation: ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6784677/

• introduced in changeset (most likely): ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82807141; changeset "created_by" field: "JOSM/1.5 (15937 en)"

• manually corrected in changeset: ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83058454

2. A new way on bus route relation was added (most likely by split way), but inserted at the wrong position. This broke the order of ways in the bus route and introduced a gap.

• error in found in relations: ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2718358 and ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10775218

• error introduced in: ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82668100; changeset "created_by" field: "JOSM/1.5 (15806 en)"

• manually corrected in: ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83086738

In all cases, the bus route relations followed the public_transport:version=2 tagging schema.

Thanks very for looking into this. I hope this is enough information to be able to find the cause of these issues.

[skyper]

The users can always manually change a relation and we will not see the difference between manual edits and automatic edits.

• For 1) a validator warning is useful and we need to check other actions than split-way which add members.
• For 2) see #17898 and #18018.

[Don-vip]

Please contact changeset authors to ask them if they agree with your analysis, and then ask them to post their status report here, with a step-by-step description of what they did to cause the error. Otherwise we can't guess.

[GerdP]

Some problems were already addressed, some more are work in progress. See e.g. #18018 and #18596