[OSM-talk] Bug in iD?

[Adrian]

@ Dave F

Almost all of the work on way 341531911 has been done by the user in question. It has taken me a while to look into the details.

I agree that what the user has done, also raises issues of quality and good practice. These issues will need to be discussed with the user. But before starting a discussion with the user, it is necessary to know whether
1. to call him out for deliberately misusing iD,
2. to explain to him how he is inadvertently mishandling iD, or
3. to say nothing about the replacement of nodes, if it is a bug in iD.
Also, before sending in a bug report, it is necessary to know whether it is a bug.

That is why I asked the question about iD.

It is recommended to try to preserve history https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

To answer your question about the history of way 341531911 in a bit more detail:- The history of the way is complicated so I am simplifying considerably. User Géovélo split an older way, and the part split off became version 1 of way 341531911. Géovélo did this to add the part split off, to two cycle route relations.
Version 1, 13 nodes, 280 m, running east 2015-04-29
User J... (I avoid using his full name) split the way at its second node, so the bulk of the original way continues to exist under a new id. After an editing session on 2015-08-21 he arrived at this:
Version 5, 36 new nodes and 2 pre-existing nodes, 250 m, running south
Most of the way follows an older way. Over that stretch, the older way has had all its nodes replaced. J... altered the lists of members of four cycle route relations and left one of them broken.
And so on, with edits on 2016-01-01, 2016-01-16 and 2016-02-21, extending the way over existing ways, reaching
Version 12, 775 nodes of which 8 pre-existing, 6.9km
Almost all the nodes of the overlaid ways have been replaced.
Finally, I fixed up 1.6km of roads that the way follows, producing
Version 13, 771 nodes of which 95 pre-existing and 1 new, 6.9km 2016-03-15

The user's mapping raises a large number of issues:
o  Two highways overlaid. There should be one highway; the mapper should decide what is its principal characteristic or use and tag accordingly, then add any appropriate tags for additional characteristics or uses.
o  He has mapped a cycleway along roads where there isn't a cycle track or a cycle lane.
o  He has mapped a route which includes one-way sections (roundabouts and dual carriageways). How is he going to account for the opposite direction of travel?
o  Traced from misaligned imagery.
o  Excessive density of points in some parts of the way.
o  A flourish or hook at the end of the way, which does not reflect anything on the ground, and the end node tagged 'to be continued' (no note or fixme). The hook raises errors in QA tools (intersecting ways on the same level with no node in common).
o  In two places the way is overlaid with a second short cycleway, one a bridge, one a tunnel.
o  The way is a member of two cycle route relations. J... has left both relations broken.
o  What the user is mapping with this way, should actually be mapped with a cycle route relation. Way 341531911 should be deleted except for two short sections where it does not overlay any other way.

This may not be easy to deal with.

Adrian