Don't forget that long stretches of roads that have a node in the middle may be a city boundary or something.

-----------|--------------
Burbank | Glendale

Yes, but you may want to go back in details and make sure the city is correct for each side.

I think I know what support's post will be to this: Can you post a permalink to the area in question so that we could take a closer look at this.

I suggest doing just that to give him a head start looking at it.

OK, now that function is no longer usable. What I did: I wanted to remove a junction from a straight road, both "parts" had the same name and no city because the street doesn't belong to a city. Remove Junction removed not only the junction but one of the road segment. So I edited the geometry and dragged the remaining part of the road to the next junction. Connect segments -> Segments could not be connected. Bummer! Then I tried to remove that junction since in the past removing a junction and adding it in the same place allowed to connect all adjacent roads. But: Junction could not be removed! What I had to do: rename all roads to the same name, road type, driving direction and city, then remove the junction, which again removed one part of one road merging the different roads (which had to be named the same to remove the junction) to one. The merged road (which is two different roads) went from a 90 degree intersection to a weird triangle. Then I once again edited the geometry of that road back to it's original geometry and added a junction which left me with three road (correct). Then I had to remove the city from all of the roads, change the road types and rename them back to their correct name. ARE YOU SERIOUS?!!

At the moment this function is completely broken. No one should use it, because if you do it completely messes up the adjacent roads almost beyond repair! That's the worst part: since you can not connect a road to an existing junction and removing and re-adding a junction does not work without destroying all adjacent roads, there's not much you can do at that point.

This is a priority one bug which should be fixed ASAP regardless of any release cycles. That is, if you don't want users to destroy parts of the map.

Elgirts wrote:I think I know what support's post will be to this: Can you post a permalink to the area in question so that we could take a closer look at this.

I suggest doing just that to give him a head start looking at it.

Nothing to see there. I reconstructed the damaged road to the way it should be. But it should be fairly easy to see the problem: Take any junction that is connected to two or more roads. Try to remove it. See what happens.

But more important: think about why someone would like to remove a junction and make sure the scenarios work!

Possible use cases:
Case 1
Merge two road segments to one road, because there's no real junction and no other reason for a virtual junction (such as level change [bridge], change in street or city name, change in driving direction). This should work when both parts have the same driving direction (including "No Entrance") and the same street and city name OR no city or street name at all.

Case 2
Same as above, but a third road (with different name) is also connected. Should do the same and leave the third road unconnected, but don't "shorten" the road to form a gap.

Case 3
User wants to connect another road to existing junction. Right now only possible if you remove the junction and add a new junction in the same place which then connects all adjacent roads.
Expected behavior:
Remove junction. If only two roads qualify to terms of case 1: merge and leave other roads unconnected.

Case 4
User wants to remove junction for an unknown reason.
Expected behavior:
Remove the *** junction, leave everything unconnected.

I think the intend behind this new behavior was Case 5
Two one-way roads with a third road coming from one side which is wrongly connected to both roads through a small part of road in the middle of both one-way roads which has the same name as them. In that rare case, yes, it would be correct to remove the junction AND the middle piece. BUT: while you just had to delete the middle part with the old "remove junction" behavior, now it's easier to correct this single senario but makes it impossible to use "remove junction" for all the other scenarios.

So, while I appreciate the effort to make things easier in Cartouche, please don't break other features (especially of this magnitude).

Please restore the old behavior for removing junctions and connecting roads to existing junctions. And if you must have a link look at this and tell me how to make a normal junction from this without removing and reconnecting (you might have to zoom in to see what's going on):
http://world.waze.com/cartouche/?zoom=5 ... 4=75294971

pevans_om wrote:I suggest that perhaps when you remove a junction cartouche should replace the junction with a node point on the road/s so that the geometry is maintained.

I quote over @ 100%

WeeeZer14 wrote:... above a certain threshold create a node and below a certain threshold just remove the junction

Why spend time to measure angle, my opinion is always one node more is better then a wrong geometry obtained when you remove junction.

i ask my self also...why there are nodes?why when i go to my dashboard to edit new road...when i open...sometime i get on 500 m of road about 3-4-5 nodes...why??for me...would be more easy that client/server/or something else...dont create any node...so if i want to add juncetion/node i would add it alone...if need it...if not...i would note add it...

Elgirts wrote:Don't forget that long stretches of roads that have a node in the middle may be a city boundary or something.

-----------|--------------
Burbank | Glendale

ok...great...but then i would manually add node...its better to add 1 node..then removing 100 of unnecessarily...waste of time...dont you think?

Is that on the world.waze.com server, because I've never had that problem.

+1 for the world server people