Impossible to approve PURs if it has an invalid house number

Map Editors Community WME Production Bugs
83

Hi @LihtsaltMats,

Thanks for this example!
Do you think you could move the RPP closer to the HN with the same address? They seem to be too far from one another. I cannot always reproduce this issue, so I’ll check this with the team to confirm and potentially find some other root cause.

Best,
Olesya

1 Like
84

Hello!
I can’t make any changes to the place, because the request is blocking them. If the location was a problem then theoretically a random housenumber should work. I tried changing it to 431, but that didn’t help either.

1 Like
85

Thank you for your response @LihtsaltMats. What I meant was moving the RPP whilst approving the PUR in the same save action. The number itself should not be causing this issue as I was able to add an RPP with the same address a bit closer to the HN (1). :thinking: Either way, I have let the team know about this problem and will keep you posted.

image
image1920×555 504 KB

1 Like
86

Hello!
Yes, I’ve tried moving the POI in various places around the HN before making this report. Also tried different distances from the HN, as that has been a known issue as well. None of the usual solutions worked, so this report was the last resort.
Thank you for checking!

2 Likes
88

Thank you for the clarification @LihtsaltMats; the root cause is still unclear to me, so I hope the team will be able to find out more. There could be an issue on the client (app) end as well. The same applies to RPP PURs with missing HNs - there is no way to produce this type of request but somehow they end up like this in WME.

I’ll keep you posted on further findings.

Best regards,
Olesya

2 Likes
89

I am receiving the “Invalid House Number” error when trying to approve RPP PURs on valid addresses with typical numeric street numbers. Two examples:

Pelham NH, USA (the correct location is across the street, but I cannot move it without approving it first)

New Ipswich NH, USA (properly located)

2 Likes
90

Hi @mikejeep47,

Thank you for reporting this.
May I try to approve the properly placed RPP PUR?

Best,
Olesya

2 Likes
91

Please do! Try both if you would like.

2 Likes
92

Added :slight_smile:

2 Likes
93

But the Pelham NH, USA is throwing an error - looking into it.

2 Likes
95

Any update on this?

I also have 2 other RPPs that cannot be approved; the house numbers submitted by the users are not correct, but even if I correct them before saving, it fails with an error.

Nashua, NH USA, should be #161
Concord, NH USA, should be #179

96

Hi @mikejeep47,

The Pelham NH, USA case is still being investigated.

As for Nashua, NH USA, should be #161, ‘A-F’ is not recognized as a valid format for HNs in RPPs, whereas it is saved fine when adding a HN to a segment—I’ll raise a separate ticket for this so we can make sure there is parity between HNs on segments and HNs in RPPs.
This RPP PUR has already been rejected on the BE, so any changes made to it will not work unfortunately.

When it comes to Concord, NH USA, should be #179, the format is fine but there is a HN with the suggested number ~2 km away, so perhaps the BE saw there was already an entity belonging to this address with the same number and it got rejected due to being located too far from that HN. I’ll ask the team to provide further insight and will keep you posted when I get an update.

Best,
Olesya

1 Like