PesachZ wrote:

Fredo-p wrote:Here's a question. If RevCons are not a thing anymore, but Toolbox shows and offers to fix it, what exactly is Toolbox "fixing"?

Also, I like the writeup so far.

RevCons are still "a thing" in the sense that they continue to exist. They are no longer a concern since the routing server is able to compensate for them, and staff has said "not to worry about them, they won't affect routing".

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

This would be the same staff that said labeling a Place as a "Gas Station" would suppress "Missing Road" map problems?

May I be so bold as to suggest that we need to fix/squash them - with extreme prejudice - ASAP. Revcons may not be a problem to staff in the immediate future, but we really have no way of telling what will happen when the conditions change surrounding a revcon... a connection (or connections) labeled one-way around a one-way become two-way, or future staffers wonder why previous staffers built some sort of algorithm that seems unnecessarily complicated...
Just do it right the first (or as soon as possible after the revcon was found) time , and we can sleep easier knowing Wazers won't be led down - literally - the wrong road.

Quick note on fixing RevCons:
It does add some robustness to the map. If a one-way segment has the correct turns in & out (no RevCons), then if the segment is set as two-way, the routing won't be broken.

voludu2 wrote: Editors should not fix them.

Maybe too strong. What about:

Editors need not fix them.

or

Editors do not have to fix them.

or

Editors are not obligated to fix them.

In some editors' view, fixing Rev Cons may be a waste of time, but fixing them is not detrimental to the map.

Considering how well ingrained in the editors experience and scripts RevCons are thus far, simply deleting any reference to them will leave a void. Editors will remember hearing about them from before and they will become a legend which editors will still think needs to be fixed, but won't know the best method (since there will no guidance on them). 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.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

Fredo-p wrote:Here's a question. If RevCons are not a thing anymore, but Toolbox shows and offers to fix it, what exactly is Toolbox "fixing"?

Also, I like the writeup so far.

RevCons are still "a thing" in the sense that they continue to exist. They are no longer a concern since the routing server is able to compensate for them, and staff has said "not to worry about them, they won't affect routing".

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

sketch wrote:Regardless of whether revcons have an actual effect on routing, they still sometimes indicate that something may have been edited without the utmost care. It's worth keeping information on what they are and why they exist/how they come to be (and keeping the highlight therefor, though that's a topic for a different discussion).

Are you saying we should still spend the time to fix them, even if they have no effect on routing?

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

I think RevCons can be completely removed from wiki.

Was going through a mentoring session and noticed the RevCon wiki page is still the old material saying it affects routing. I do like the proposed change above from last year, although if you wanted to be safe you could say "Although reverse connections currently have no effect on routing

Bumping this ancient thread because I see that revcons are still in the glossary and the page it links to still says they negatively affect routing, which is no longer the case.

Revcons can also affect routing instructions, by causing the routing engine to see a possible route where none is allowed. This may cause it to issue an unnecessary but valid instruction, a questionable instruction, or, in unusual circumstances, increases the likelihood of creating an illegal routing plan.

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Re ... nnectivity

Regardless of whether revcons have an actual effect on routing, they still sometimes indicate that something may have been edited without the utmost care. It's worth keeping information on what they are and why they exist/how they come to be (and keeping the highlight therefor, though that's a topic for a different discussion).