Report bad editors

[shawndoc]

You need to remove the alternate name for those 5 segments. Save, recreate.

Thanks for finding that.

[jasonh300]

Now that we have a version of Extended Tools for the new editor where the segment list works in Chrome, I'll probably start cleaning up more.

I tried that, but didn't really find it useful for smudge hunting outside of urban areas. It's come in handy finding a few oddball city names though.

[skbun]

Now that we have a version of Extended Tools for the new editor where the segment list works in Chrome, I'll probably start cleaning up more.

I tried that, but didn't really find it useful for smudge hunting outside of urban areas. It's come in handy finding a few oddball city names though.

I can think of a way it would be more useful, and I'd probably call this a feature request. Because god knows I spend enough time in rural areas doing this. (Trinity County, CA is the very definition of 'rural'.)

And that is this: can WME be changed to allow all segments of all types to be selectable/iterated at zoom level 3? See https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=3&lat ... TTTFTTTTFT As it is today, all segment types are already DISPLAYED at this zoom; you just can't 'select entire streets' or reliably select any given street segment (especially short segments, but some long ones work for some reason). Doing 'select entire street' or selecting segments of arbitrary length of Primary streets, minor highways, etc. all work fine at this level. ... But not for streets or other types.

If we could 'display all segments' at zoom 3 with the add-ons, cleaning up smudges including Portola would go a lot faster; in fact, by definition, four times faster. There may be a resource throttle that prevents this, but it can't hurt to ask, right?

[jemay]

Have you cleared out Portola Valley yet? I specifically ignored that one since it's such a huge project and I don't have much time to dedicate to it.

Oh heck no. Jemay actually I believe handled most of the auto-generated errors about it, but there's still plenty of smudge out there. Every now and then when I've got the time and inclination I'll spend an hour or so at it, but its pretty widespread in the countryside. Now that we have a version of Extended Tools for the new editor where the segment list works in Chrome, I'll probably start cleaning up more.

The auto-generated are only if the city (and in most cases in California - Portola Valley) is inside of another city area. there are TONS MORE (Portola Valley) outside of the city area that are not flagged. And that would take several people several years to find and eliminate manually. Today I have found more with the auto-generated, you just have to go to remote cities/towns...

[skbun]

Have you cleared out Portola Valley yet? I specifically ignored that one since it's such a huge project and I don't have much time to dedicate to it.

Oh heck no. Jemay actually I believe handled most of the auto-generated errors about it, but there's still plenty of smudge out there. Every now and then when I've got the time and inclination I'll spend an hour or so at it, but its pretty widespread in the countryside. Now that we have a version of Extended Tools for the new editor where the segment list works in Chrome, I'll probably start cleaning up more.

The auto-generated are only if the city (and in most cases in California - Portola Valley) is inside of another city area. there are TONS MORE (Portola Valley) outside of the city area that are not flagged. And that would take several people several years to find and eliminate manually. Today I have found more with the auto-generated, you just have to go to remote cities/towns...

I proposed this to one of the folks at Waze; one way to nail the URs for Portola would be to temporarily assign all segments inside the actual city of Portola Valley using the extended tools to something else, then tag every single remaining segment with the Waze Automatic error, with a much simpler algorhythm hit. (Does this segment's primary CityID equal 'Portola Valley'? If so, flag it.) Then put Portola Valley, the city, back.

[jemay]

I proposed this to one of the folks at Waze; one way to nail the URs for Portola would be to temporarily assign all segments inside the actual city of Portola Valley using the extended tools to something else, then tag every single remaining segment with the Waze Automatic error, with a much simpler algorhythm hit. (Does this segment's primary CityID equal 'Portola Valley'? If so, flag it.) Then put Portola Valley, the city, back.

NO. If you identified EVERY segment that would be thousands and thousands and thousands of them that would be flagged. As stated in another thread about smudges... the Portola Valley city (outside of the actual city) should be changed to blank!.

[skbun]

I proposed this to one of the folks at Waze; one way to nail the URs for Portola would be to temporarily assign all segments inside the actual city of Portola Valley using the extended tools to something else, then tag every single remaining segment with the Waze Automatic error, with a much simpler algorhythm hit. (Does this segment's primary CityID equal 'Portola Valley'? If so, flag it.) Then put Portola Valley, the city, back.

NO. If you identified EVERY segment that would be thousands and thousands and thousands of them that would be flagged. As stated in another thread about smudges... the Portola Valley city (outside of the actual city) should be changed to blank!.

It'd be a full solution if it didn't extend into other states - which I know at a minimum it goes into Nevada. There'd still be a state smudge to clean up. But then, I haven't got a good idea of how to deal with that part of it. If they can identify segments based on a lat/long location as well during such a change, we could split which state is assigned.

EDIT: Also, on reflection, I'm misremembering. I assumed that the Waze Automatic flagging was going to do exactly what you said (tag thousands and thousands, etc.) when we first started seeing it appear. What I'd done to the extent of bringing attention to it came back to 'Please do something to fix this'. Full circle...

[AlanOfTheBerg]

You need to remove the alternate name for those 5 segments. Save, recreate.

Thanks for finding that.

Those look ok now.

But there are other problems around there such as:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... s=61268451 has an alternate street which is not associated with any state.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... s=62237741 has Alabama in the alt street

[shawndoc]

Those look ok now.

But there are other problems around there such as:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... s=61268451 has an alternate street which is not associated with any state.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... s=62237741 has Alabama in the alt street

Thanks Alan, I don't suppose there's an easy way to find these for those of us that aren't programmers?

[skbun]

Thanks Alan, I don't suppose there's an easy way to find these for those of us that aren't programmers?

There is indeed! Install Timbones's highlighter script, at http://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25806 . Current production version is 1.5; there's a beta listed later in the thread you can try.

As an area manager, there are extended settings you can work with, like 'highlighting by city', which is undoubtedly where Alan saw these. (I'd helped code portions that check alt streets and city/country mismatches, so I know how that works).