Include route_master relations in validation

[kjonosm]

Maybe an iD issue? iD now checks for incomplete or inconsistent tagging of route relations. Unfortunately this check doesn't seem to also cover the corresponding parent route_master relations. Is there a way to also include those when validating?

[bhousel]

Oh interesting - yes that might go here. I hadn't thought about adding items for the route_master relations before, and my impression was that they are kind of rare. e.g. we would not want to auto-generate a route_master for every route=*.

[kjonosm]

On a quick look, I'd say they are in widespread use - in Germany anyway. Nearly all two way routes have a corresponding route_master.

You might want to have a look at https://ptna.openstreetmap.de a qa tool with lots of checks used in quite a few countries. The problem described above has prompted validation errors over there.

[osm-ToniE]

@bhousel

e.g. we would not want to auto-generate a route_master for every route=*.

Oh no, the issue is just that the 'network' tag of an existing route_master differs from the 'network' tag of the route members after the changes.

Example: https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/NW/DE-NW-AVV-Analysis.html#bus_234

Do not auto-create route_masters, that doesn't make sense.

[bhousel]

Do not auto-create route_masters, that doesn't make sense.

Yes I agree! But I think I can add something on the iD side so that if it sees a route_master, it can just treat it like a route.

[osm-ToniE]

Yeah would be great to have this ASAP, number of problematic cases is exploding now