Toolbox Permissions USA

Map Editors Community Addons, Extensions, And Scripts WME Toolbox Country Settings
1

This thread should be used to discuss which Toolbox tools should, or should not be available to editors in the USA.

Once a decision on a tool permission change is reached in this thread, the US TbCC will notify the TB developers to make that change. Changes only take effect on the following WMETB version release.

The designated US TbCC is currently OrbitC, and Sketch.

To facilitate efficient discussion, please include a convincing argument why a change should be implemented with any request for a change.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

2

Line #41: Autofix - Suppress unneeded geometry on selected segments.

  • Support Default setting (L5, L6, AM&L3+,CM).

Line #42: Autofix - Suppress unneeded geometry on entire screen.

  • Support using the Default (L5, L6, CM) as a minimum. If not higher restriction.
3

To facilitate constructive discussion please provide a sound argument for why you think any change should be implemented.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

4

I would support these.

While I fully understand that many tools are restricted to reduce the temptation to perform mass-edits, I also fail to see the map damage risk in “Suppress unneeded geometry on selected segments”
With the current programming logic, no harm comes from this operation (doglegs are not touched), and combined with other TB restrictions (see below) it prevents mass-editing.

My personal feeling is that anyone who can be trusted with “Clear segment geometry” can also be trusted with “Suppress unneeded geometry on selected segments”, but I don’t have a problem with it being restricted to L3+AM and above, as this is not a tool that has been historically available to those below that level.

Primary reason, it makes life easier when segments need to be simplified for any number of reasons:
1 - Newbie creates a BBQ grille in a parking lot. Delete unwanted segments, delete unneeded junction nodes, select impacted segments and simplify.
This process takes something that might take 30 minutes and pares it down to 5-10 depending on the number of impacted segments.
2 - User paves a road. Paved area is extensive, over a road(s) that is/are not straight (rendering “clear geometry” not useful), and could perhaps contain 60 geometry nodes and 40 junction nodes, when only 5 junction nodes are valid.

While this will still require much manual cleanup, the ability for TB to clean up perhaps 50 of the invalid nodes is a big time-saver.

Other items:

Line #16: Highlight Simplifiable Segments - Match restrictions to Line #42.
IF we trust that excess geometry nodes to not appreciably increase server loading, then the only reason to delete them is to make adjustments to the actual geometry of the various segments and to eliminate over-complex segments (perhaps from basemap import).
These are issues that may be observed and corrected as the segments are worked.
There is no need for a highlight to call attention to these segments unless there is some other reason to edit them.

Line #39: Select in Area Place - Restrict to L3 and above
Purpose, reduce potential for mass-edits IE: blanket change of editor lock level or segment type.
L3 is the lowest level where the RC has a firm level of quality control. Many L2 editors get there while still drawing red roads and BBQ parking lots. Any kind of tool that makes it easier than using “M” to select multiple segments creates the potential for abuse by inexperienced or careless editors looking to “farm” points.
I would be okay with leaving this open to non-AM L3/4 because it is another tool that aids in the cleanup of a network of red roads that may share a common city and segment type.

Line #44: Auto Add Node to Loops - Make available to all levels
Question: Is there a situation where this could be harmful or abused?
Qualification: Suggestion is assuming that this tool requires the loop to be selected.
I would not be in favor of this being available to L1/2/3 if it does not require selection

Line #46: Select non-freeway/ramp segments with toll attribute - I’m flip-flopping on this one. While it can be a valuable tool to any level editor, I certainly see the potential for mass-editing without examining each selected segment.
I would be in favor of opening this up to L3+ IF it is restricted to zoom levels tight enough to render PVT/PLR segments.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that Java is not a secret language.
If an option is available within TB, it will be used as-is, and the TB Devs have some level of control over the function (like simple segments not corrupting doglegs).

As features that “used to be available” are removed, it provides an incentive for those who are able to program to write their own scripts and bookmarklets that replace the removed functions. If they do not advertise the script, then we potentially end up with L1 editors running around with tools that could cause serious damage, and senior editors having no clue about the script other than a suspicion because recently edited segments form a rectangle.
Let’s not forget that TB is a collaboration of dedicated authors who incorporated their scripts into one package… but just as JNF still exists outside of TB, it would not be a complex matter for a programmer to duplicate other features without level restrictions.

My own feeling is that features should be restricted firstly based on their potential to cause damage in the hands of an inexperienced or careless editor, and secondly by the potential for use for “edit farming”
If a tool does not carry a high risk of causing damage, and is not inherently a “multiple segment” tool, I don’t see the harm in it being available to most editors.

The little trash can at the top right of WME poses more potential for damage than any of the TB tools that were available in the 1.5.9 configuration.

5

This functionality is mature enough to validate its ability to save significant editing time. It is one of the few editing tools that is very unlikely to allow map damage from use (due to how it is implemented by the programers). The very fact that its default setting restricts use to experienced editors, serves to further reinforce the fact that use is not likely to cause map damage. In fact, the basic functionality of WME itself, available to all editors, is much more prone to allowing map damage.

Functions that are needed the most are found in WME. Toolbox brings to the table those editing tools that are not needed as often. Like the other tools in the Toolbox arsenal, when they are needed to save time, they are there to use. “Cutting a segment”, "Clearing all geometry, “Add a node to loops” … they can all be done manually. But toolbox allows the fix with one-click, and move on to the next map change.

6

The simplify segment tool could easily be a one-segment-only thing and I’d be okay with it. Due to the lack of need for it ever to be used, it’s just one of those tools that comes in handy when you’re messing with a particular segment. Much like ‘clear all geometry’, except smart enough to save you a few nodes instead of killing them all, therefore resulting in a slight amount of time saved over the ‘clear all geometry’ tool.

I’m fine adding the additional restriction of one-segment-only instead of selected segments allowing you to do multiple at once. The multiple selection thing is too easily gotten around as far as an actual limitation.

I also think the screenwide tool is useless. It doesn’t do anything for the map, or the editor. It just raises edit count and hardens soft turns. It should never be used. Frankly I think toolbox should remove it, period.

7

I agree with doing away with the screen wide tool, but retain the ability to apply the tool to multiple selected segments. When dealing with multiple short segments, (say, like in a town whose streets are on a grid layout) having to select one segment at a time would be very tedious and offer no advantage to not having the tool in the first place.

8

I’m not sure if single/multiple is even configurable in the first place, but if it is, I’d rather multiple be restricted to the higher levels like CM or 5.

Selecting every segment on the screen is pretty easy to do, so edit farming is still possible quite easily. And I wouldn’t even care if it didn’t do more damage than good (hardening soft turns that haven’t been examined closely, basically.)

9

That’s why I suggested restricting select-in-area to zoom levels where PLR/PVT segments are visible, if not one level tighter.

Any editor CAN make edits to a segment that inadvertently hardens the turns without looking at them, but at least forcing them to zoom to a level where they can see it will be helpful.
Perhaps even add a warning before the script actually executes the instruction “Warning: Segment 98657412 has two soft turns, are you sure you wish to proceed?”

10

I love the warning idea, even the best of editors might overlook something and a prompt would be quite handy.

However, select in area isn’t the only way to mass select segments quickly. =P

11

A short outside-US comment:

I don’t understand why removing a geometry node of a segment should have any effect on a soft turn? It doesn’t, to my knowledge.

What does happen is that previously unedited basemap segments (“Last update: admin(staff)”) are edited after a geometry node removal, resulting in these segments losing their ability to auto-adjust driving direction from actual drives. From the next release on, the simplify tool will therefore skip unedited basemap segments.

12

I think through various conversations over the last year, the hardening of direction has become confused with the hardening of soft turns (thank you for reminding us).

Good move on skipping unedited segments. Simplify may be (probably is) needed on them, but not until after they have been verified to be correctly placed and configured.

13

I don’t know where that came from, either. I’ve certainly never observed it doing that… :?:

14

This may just be a semantics thing, because exactly what you just said, I have also heard referred to as ‘hardening’ the soft turns. It loses the ability to automatically adjust direction or turn restrictions based on drives, and if those directions or turn restrictions haven’t been adjusted and confirmed for accuracy, they are now ‘hardened’ or locked in until manually edited in the future.

As far as the simplify tool simply ignoring segments in which this result would occur, I like that even better than the warning. Or some combination: After you run the tool, a popup says ‘these segments must be confirmed before they can be simplified’ and the selection changes to those segments which were not simplified and need examining.

You still have the edit farming issue and the mass edit issue, but if such a function were coded in, I wouldn’t care if the screen-wide tool was available to AM’s and above at that point, or at least CM’s and above.

Still, it’s not like it actually helps in 99% of situations anyway, so it’s not like the loss of the tool is really a big thing. The amount of data saved by it is infinitesimal.

15

Right about directions, wrong about turn restrictions. It’s not just semantics, it’s misinformation. There’s a difference between the two.

Never-edited segments are “soft” in direction, meaning that drivers can automatically cause adjustments to them. Once the segment is edited, it is no longer “soft”. This includes edits done by the simplify tool, of course. Therein lies the problem.

Automatically-adjustable turn restrictions are soft turns. Once a turn is no longer soft, it is hard. Turns also become hard when they are edited. Because turns don’t have history data displayed, there is a separate indicator for softness – the question mark. But I digress. The simplifier does not edit turns, so it cannot affect their hardness or softness.

16

Regarding Line 42 - I still am a strong opponent of it being allowed. I have stated my case before about why but to summarize here. My argument against it is it leads to not paying attention to the details. Even at higher levels of editors I think a set of eyes still should be put on a segment.

Line 41 - No objections. Again there are workarounds but it is all about slowing down the editing process. I think sometimes editors are in such a hurry to make things go quicker or easier, as stated in this thread, that things get overlooked. Things like a turn restricted on a road, or a segment not having a direction at all. And that is the point I am making that newer editors and even us higher level editors (I have been guilty a time or two) need to slow down because we can sometimes miss the bigger picture.

@sketch,
That little bit of misinformation came from me. But it stems from the original incarnation of simseg and a question I asked way back then. Where we could tell simseg was used and all turns were hard set to restricted. At least that was part of the original discussion I don’t remember that being disproven back then.

Edited to reflect my thoughts on the right lines of the spreadsheet.

17

I am in support of allowing line 41. I see it as a less destructive version of the clear road geometry tool and it has a demonstrable benefit in certain situations if used with care. It certainly provides less potential for abuse or accidental damage to routing by allowing its use ONLY on selected segments than the “apply to the whole map” setting it had before.

Because it has the potential for abuse (which is why we have AM/SM/CMs and Champs, to monitor this kinda stuff) is no reason to deny it to everyone. Cleaning up behind other editors is also another ongoing process. Not all of it is malicious or due to carelessness, sometimes something is just missed or left incomplete because someone forgets to come back to it.

So we can theorize all day long about how something can be misused, but we need to evaluate if the potential for misuse outweighs allowing tools to be available for careful and deliberate use.

18

+1

On Steve’s original comment, I too was leaning more toward his “Or Higher” comment on the minimum restricted level, but being a tool that I have never had access to, and knowing that the US CM’s and GCs are a pretty tight group, access to that is something that you need to hammer out amongst yourselves.

Personally, the “full screen” tools (for any editor level) don’t bother me as much if they are limited to the tighter zoom levels… where the editor can actually see the geometry and directionality of the segments impacted.

19

My only input here is this.

When I clean an area I used to use it as a “final touch” if you will, was nice to have roads without a googl of geo nodes attached to it. Rather than clearing all geo nodes and re-aligning manually.

Other than that I couldn’t care less if it’s there. However, if it’s not going to be included can we please remove the highlight. It’s kinda bugging the crap outta me. :slight_smile:

If it is re-enabled. I am in support for CM and above, sadly I think some R5 even use it without thinking, there are far fewer CM’s around. If only to discourage point farming from those few that do it. Or rather messing with otherwise incorrect segments as throttling prevents point farming nowadays.

20

And I really don’t understand the point farming aspect among L4+ anyways.
We saw a lot of it happen before and during the LA MapRaid, from L5/6 editors who should know better… but once you are at L3, points and even edit count are simply not that relevant for consideration for level promotion.
It’s like the non-editing drivers who drop a ton of "vehicle stopped on shoulder and other BS alerts to get their 6 points, not realizing that they’re never going to make the leaderboard without editing, or at least contributing a TON of Place points.

Throttling has also completely removed any “points value” from mass-edits… even legitimate edits are triggering throttling.
It took me about 7 months to hit 90k edits. I’ve only increased by 35k in the last 6 months.