Shall we check if a Mnn road is Motorway, if a Motorway is named Mnn or both?
Sure, Validator reports incorrect city name only if it sees “Blackwater (Wexford)” and “Blackwater” names during the same map scan. You can use “Clear report” button to clear the city cache.
Please give me a permalink if you have a problem with this check.
So, Motorways are either ‘Mxx’ or ‘Mxx[space]<N, S, W or E>’
Majors are ‘Nxx’ or ‘Nxx[space]<local name, i.e. letters, digits, spaces or dots>’
Minos are ‘Rxxx’ or ‘Rxxx[space]<local name, i.e. letters, digits, spaces or dots>’
Right?
I would still really like it if it wasn’t flashing freeways at me that are locked at level 3 or above.
I’ve discovered that it will flash to alert you to an “unneeded node {A|B}” when that node is there to let you change states (when a road crosses a state line). Any chance that can be fixed?
Both, I reckon: check that all roads beginning Mnn are of type Freeway, and all roads of type Freeway begin with Mnn.
Ah, OK - I thought I’d seen it complaining about a town with this pattern in its name. I’ll keep an eye out and see if I notice it again, and give you a permalink if it does.
Yes - the cardinal direction should almost always be there (because motorways are always split) however motorways occasionally end with a roundabout or a short two-way stretch that doesn’t have a cardinal direction.
Almost, except that major highways can also have cardinal directions (just like motorways) when they’re split. (although I guess the regex that matches ‘Nxx[space]<local name, i.e. letters, digits, spaces or dots>’ would also match ‘Nxx[space]<cardinal direction>’ too, so that’s fine).
Exactly! (split minor highways can also have cardinal directions (just like major highways) but the pattern for local name should match that too.
These segments do not have any soft turns on the connected node, I have tried to fix this “soft turn” to clear the detected error, but I have been unsuccesful. Can you provide me some guidance on how to solve this situation ?
Thanks for your effort on giving us better tools for editting, regards from Concepción, Chile,
Hover your mouse over the problem title in the segment properties to get the “How to fix” instructions. For the soft turns it’s: “Click the turn indicated with a purple question mark to confirm it.”
There are purple question marks near the U-turn arrows, so you just click them to confirm that U-turns are disabled.
I have seen it and verified there are no U turns. I have also changed all turns red (not aloud turns), save the changes and then turn them green (turns aloud), save the changes again, and I cannot delete the “soft turn” warning message.
May be Validator is checking on the other end… and there I cannot do anything as there are no turns.
Thanks for your quick reply, and keep up the great work you are doing, best regrds,
I have just drew a new street between two single end points, make new segment bidirectional, aloud all turns on the new nodes, delete segment, and ended clearing the “soft turn” detection on the original segments.
So it is due that Validator is checking on single street node and detecting “soft turn” on this disconnected, end of segment node.
Yes, you have soft disabled U-turns at the dead end of those streets (see the picture below).
But you are right, there are so many of them and it does not worth to hard disable those turns. So in the next release the check will report soft turns on Primary streets and up only.
If you’re going to do that, PLEASE make it a selectable option to turn on or off non-primary street U-Turn detection. The very reason someone pointed out this tool to me was because I was complaining that I didn’t have any way to detect end-node U-Turn issues (permitted or soft restricted). And in the areas that I work, there are a LOT of plain-old streets that have that issue. If you remove the check outright except for only primary streets and above, you’ll be removing the very thing that brought me to this tool in the first place.
I’ve had URs from people who got routed a weird way, and when I’ve posted “what’s wrong here” type questions, the response I’ve gotten from champs/experts/etc was that the soft restriction looked to be the cause so I should hard restrict it. So yea, it is worth it to highlight the soft restrictions. At least for some of us.
I completely understand that some people may not find that so useful. But please don’t hamstring those of us who do. If you make it an option under settings (one that sticks across sessions preferred <grin>), then both groups of people can get what they need.
I don’t think I agree with this either. Though maybe I misunderstand what you are saying. Soft turns should be reported on all segments, including dead-end u-turns.
Today, I’m getting a strange result from the Validator as I pan around. Roads that weren’t flashing before are doing so now. I’m getting a “same endpoints drivable segments” error where that’s not the case.
I’m not sure that’s the correct interpretation of what they’re talking about in that thread…
Also, one of the examples I provided was for a roundabout. A roundabout only has the same number of nodes as there are roads connected to it. When you’ve got two roads involved (like in my example), you’re only going to have two nodes. The “add roundabout” function in the WME isn’t going to create an extra blank junction node. The Toolbox “redo roundabout” function is also does not create an extra node because it’s not necessary (no segment is actually connecting back to “the same node”).
Edit: One other thing, regarding the “unneeded A/B check” - I reported this in an earlier message, but in case you missed it: It’s reporting a case where there is a valid node along a road - when a road crosses from one state to another, we put a node there to separate the section that’s in one state from the other. The Wiki also states that’s a valid use for a junction node along a road between two segments. Here’s an example. This is valid and shouldn’t be getting flagged.
That’s a good trick - how can it route you the wrong way through a roundabout, when a roundabout is a group of one-way segments? :?: :o (I’m not saying that you’re making it up, I’m just having a hard time picturing the circumstances that could lead to that happening…)
