Exellent
1234678 ↩︎
Just FYI, here is the list of codes for each ${type}:
1 Street
2 Primary Street
3 FW
4 Ramp
5 Walking trail
6 MH
7 mH
8 Dirt
9 Unassigned?
10 Boardwalk
11-15 Unassigned?
16 Stairway
17 Private
18 Railroad
19 Runway
20 PLR
21 Service rd
Putting it at the end (the $ says there can’t be anything after it, so 1-Street is not confused with 10-Boardwalk or 16-Stairway, etc.):
template: ${street}:${length}:${type}
expression: /^:[0-9]{3,}:[1-46-8]$/
This says street name is blank (nothing between start and first colon), length has at least 3 digits ([0-9] is any digit, {3,} means 3 or or of that), and [1-46-8] means any single digit except 0, 5, or 9, which most of the common types that you would expect to have a name, except that ramp may not have a name. Railroad should probably also be included, in which case:
expression for nameless >=100m of types expecting a name (which EXCLUDES ramps): /^:[0-9]{3,}:([1-36-8]|18)$/
Excuse the RegEx tutorial 
1 Like
Thanks for the tutorial, it is going straight to my evernote.
Two questions
- what does the various beeps mean? Seems to have a purpose, but haven’t figured it out.
- How do you turn that NOISE OFF?!?
An alternative to ${type} is ${typeRank}, which uses the following codes:
${typeRank}
15 freeway
14 major highway
13 minor highway
12 ramp
11 primary street
10 street
9 service road
8 dirt road
7 parking lot road
6 private road
5 walking trail
4 pedestrian bdwk
3 stairway
2 railroad
1 runway
Kinda makes it easier if you wanna do, say, all public drivable roads (1[0-5]). Also a little easier to remember.
- One beep per “screen”, with a higher-pitched beep at the end.
- Gear, wrench, uncheck “Enable sounds”.
Thanks for your answers guys. Here is my variant
To highlight more than 100m long unnamed drivable streets:
Template: ${drivable}:${street}:${length}
RegExp: /1::…+/
Added to the list of examples: forum link
How does it define “drivable”? Is that just everything from Freeway to Street and Ramp, or does it also include conditionally drivable roads like Private, PLot, and Dirt?
Oh, your’re right. We ought to exclude parking lot roads. I’ll fix it later…
- I’d guess the longer between pages (beeps), the more segments to check?
- Thanks, never noticed the Gear. :oops:
Yep, at least I believe so. When I scan an area that has both urban/suburban roads and large lakes/swamps, I get lots of really quick beeps and a number of well-spaced ones, with some in between (probably along the edges between built areas and swamps/lakes).
I really like this tool.
My suggestion is to add set City and Street default fields to ‘None’.
Something like the already existing ‘WME: Two-way segments by default’ option.
This should not be a global option. We catch lots of new/bad editors by being able to see the red roads at very wide zoom levels.
I updated the Wiki page to reflect the new Firefox download links.
Are you suggesting finding all “streets” and “cities” without names by default?
If so I don’t like that idea
There are a lot more of bad editing practices than leaving red roads.
If you find a bad editor you can already use WME Colour Highlight to show all its editions.
I find very tedious to manually set no city and no street. There are small towns / Islands completely not mapped and this keeps edition back.
If someone has bothered to install add-ons, he probably knows about red roads. But no problem, just make the feature r3 and up.
As for what the default city is, it would be nice to have it set to the city of its attachment point(s) rather than None. If the cities are different or incomplete, then the City field cannot be automatically completed.
I’ve net seen an explanation for why political boundaries aren’t stored in a single database somewhere.
We really shouldn’t have to set the city name at all. There would be no smudges. It truly would save a lot of work.
I know I’m just a jr editor, and have found this to be a porwerful tool. Im very glad for my informal mentor for pointing me this way.
And please forgive me in advance if I go into too much detail. I tend to overexplain, but am trying to keep things to a minimum. I’ve already edited out a few bits.
I was only planning on reading part of the thread and commenting, but was learning too much to stop reading every message, even though due to work constraints it took me a couple of days. (Okay, I took some time off to read a book and watch some TV, but you get the idea…)
A few of checks that I’d like to propose be added:
1> Walking trails and other non-drivable road types that have a elevation of something other than -5 be flagged. By running the script near my home, I found a few examples of this, so I have a feeling it’s not that uncommon of an error.
2> Now that the US is moving to a Functional Classification system, I’ve found an odd segment here and there that don’t match the new FC system. Each side of the segment has a different road type but the same street name. Usually it’s a short segment between a parking lot and a cross street, but I’m wondering how many more are out there. From what I understand, the changing of the road type can cause routing problems. So I propose we check against that as well.
3> Another check that would probably have to be handled on the country level now that Landmarks has transisitioned to Places is a check on the new Places markers versus what the rules say they should be. For example, for a while a religious site was permitted while a simple church was not. On the other hand many editors concluded that any site that had hundreds of worshippers visiting it every day or was over a hundred years old (Hey! I’m in America! Here that is a long time!) or… You get the idea. In each country there should be (eventually) a list of approved typed of markers in the Wiki that could be used to compare what is used. [edited to remove additional unnecessary examples]
Much simpler under the new rules, if I understand everything correctly. Just mark them all places(points) instead of places(areas). [edited to remove a reference to the unnecessary examples]
Krikket
Validator and Toolbox both believe this segment should be straightened, but in my opinion is pulls the road a little too far off the actual road since it curves. It seems like it might be a little too aggressive in what they are both considering is a straight enough line.
I’m not sure how much of the rules support this, exactly. Railroads are to be set at -5, certainly, as are Walking Trails (if mapped at all), I believe, but a Pedestrian Boardwalk shouldn’t always, necessarily. I think a lot of these rules are in flux.
This could be good – given 3 segments with the same name, if the segment in the middle has a different type than the segments on the ends, flag it. I imagine this would be a ‘slow’ check, but that’s fine.
I don’t mind the idea, but I think Places is still too young to start incorporating things into Validator about it – especially in the rest of the world.
The Validator-Toolbox highlights are pulled straight from Toolbox – in other words, Validator is just reporting what Toolbox reports in its reports – so only Toolbox’s selection criteria will affect this (but I agree that Toolbox is too aggressive in this function).
Thanks. I will move my comment to that thread.