The discussion of what to do about toolbox can happen on the toolbox topic.

How about replacing the article with this. It begins with a summary and guidance.

Then ends with more detail. Technical description is mixed with advice in this article.
Both are global -- we have been told that revcon is now a non-issue on all servers.

If this is not correct, please correct it. Once the corrections stop coming in, I will offer to replace the contents with the corrected version. Thank you for your help.

Here is a first draft.

"Reverse connectivity," often abbreviated "revcon" or "RevCon," happens when a hidden turn is allowed going the wrong direction into a one-way street (against traffic), or leading the wrong direction out of a one-way street. Recent changes to the Waze routing engine mean that revcons are not important. Editors should not fix them.

A connection (turn allowed) from one [[Glossary#segment|segment]] to another via a [[Glossary#junction|junction]] which goes against the directionality of at least one of the segments is called a Reverse Connection, and these segments have "reverse connectivity." Though it is hard to see this in the editor, two segments of a one-way road connected together could have an allowed "turn" in the opposite direction of the flow of traffic, or directionality, of the segments. This can be seen in the editor by turning both segments to 2-way and then seeing the location of the allowed turns.

Earlier versions of the Waze routing engine treated revcons as possible routes where none was allowed. Scripts, such as [[Community Plugins, Extensions and Tools#Highlights for Landmarks and_Segments|Color Highlighting]], WME Toolbox, and WME Validator featured tools to highlight and to fix revcons. These tools are no longer necessary.

I think at, in the short term, it is useful to have something about revcons so map editors searching the wiki can learn exactly that they don't need to bother.

Eventually, the topic could be added to a page listing things we don't need to do any more, but which used to be important. A list like this could be useful to returning editors trying to catch up on changed in the last year, for example.

Fix Revcons. Allow u-turns on unconnected ends of segments. Remove all u-turn arrows. It's a growing list of things we do not need to do any linger.

voludu2 wrote:Then how about with this slight change...

I like it the last write up.

PesachZ wrote:...Instead a small article explaining "what they are, that they used to require being fixed, and are no longer an issue because <fill in reason here>", would probably go a lot longer to transfer the knowledge we have to the terms of thousands of editors who still think dealing with RevCons is an important task.

So as someone relatively new to this, why are these no longer an issue?

I like the latest version, with the small exception that, in general, I don't care for words like "recent" in undated text that is intended to endure for some time.

Perhaps simplify that sentence to something along the lines of "They are no longer a problem." (attempting to avoid duplicating the glossary text, and the last paragraph, re: routing / engine )

CBenson wrote: Doubt it, the discussion has been ongoing since at least 2011 - viewtopic.php?f=276&t=103908

That is the discussion I recall. I do not recall ever settling on the idea that "junction" is an acceptable shorthand for "node" or "junction node". If you need to spell it out with two words every time, fine, but if it walks like a node, talks like a node, and the editor calls it a node, then it's at the very least a "node".

voludu2 wrote:

. . . via a [[Glossary#junction|junction]] . . .

I know this is not related, and I know I haven't been around as much, so I guess I must have missed this discussion...

...but how on earth did we as a community arrive on junction being less confusing than node?? The word "junction" does not appear anywhere in the editor when you select or do anything else with a node.

Glossary entry for "junction"
Glossary entry for "node"

"Five different types of nodes"? Dead end nodes and segment endpoint nodes and junction nodes are all the same thing. The only difference is whether or not they're connected to anything else. If you attach a new segment to a 'dead end node' then it becomes a 'junction node'. It's still a node.

I know we call "geometry nodes" 'nodes' but cementing this in the lexicon was a mistake. A node is a point on a network where different segments of that network meet. A "geometry node" is not a node. It is a handle. It is a device by which you grab/move/manipulate a larger thing.

I do not understand how we are okay with defining "five different kinds of nodes" when we were so concerned about confusion between lock/user level and segment level that we changed both terms, to "rank" and "elevation", and hammered everyone who said "L4" or "L6" for so many months, and in the end relented because staff changed the editor to say "elevation".

The definition of "junction", by the way, needs to be changed to include the "junction box" now. "Junction" should be a disambiguation between "Junction box" and "Node". It is absurd that we are defining "Junction" as if it alone is the name of a "node", especially considering that the editor itself calls it a node and always has.

[/soapbox]

I'm saying that when they're present, the situation is worth investigating, to see if perhaps a segment was erroneously set to one-way or the wrong way. And once we get there and verify the map is correct, we can eliminate them really quickly with JNF anyway, to 'mark' that there is no longer a situation that might need fixing.

IME revcons are as good as or better than MPs at indicating problems on the map.