[Script] WME Toolbox

[vaindil]

Umm....never mind. It's working now. Of course it does.

Welcome to the world of development--it never works until you try to reproduce it for someone else.

[vaindil]

Could we get its old behavior restored where it will delete unnecessary junction nodes that have restricted turns? Killing that functionality for the sake of a very rare scenario just did nothing but increase the work load for those of us who edit a bunch of basemap. It's even worse when I'm on my MacBook that lacks a real delete key.

This will have to stay--a junction with a turn restriction is necessary by definition, it shouldn't be deleted since it'll be incorrect to delete it 90% of the time. A workaround would be to use the tool to enable all turns on the screen then remove unnecessary junctions. I know it's an extra step, but it's one that will need to stay.

[vaindil]

WME toolbox xpi still needs to be signed. The author should look at this page -- https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add ... stribution
--snip--

We'll make sure this happens. Thanks for bringing it up.

[vaindil]

See this post.

[vaindil]

I disagree, a short section of one way road, locked at an appropriate level, could address the VERY uncommon situation where someone would need to restrict movement at a node other than an intersection. I would have at least like to have seen some discussion or widespread examples (not just a one off, or theoretical example) given before this was disabled.

If you don't think it is that big of a deal, I invite you guys to start editing in an area where a bunch of farm "roads" got mapped, and every last one of them attached to a road that has an unknown street direction. We're talking about dozens of nodes in some cases, each with turns restricted. So we're talking about a lot of extra work load, not just a "few extra (unnecessary) keystrokes".

As an alternative, would it not be possible to allow unneeded nodes to be removed if they have one or more soft turns? If such a turn was deliberately restricted (and I can't think of one time I've had to do it out of over 800k edits) then it reasons to say that there will be no soft turns? It would give those of us editing basemap a useful tool back, while protecting the deliberately set turn restriction.

This is in place for the reasons I originally stated--if the tool is used (even by accident) in a populated area, it would cause major headaches. It could also introduce loops where there shouldn't be any if the person drew them incorrectly in the first place. If a new editor has gone through and left a bunch of soft turns but the person using the tool didn't realize that, lots could go wrong. We need to avoid that sort of thing with any automated fixes we put in TB.

One potential fix that I just thought of would be a new tool to automatically change the direction of all segments on the screen to two-way, but I'll have to look into that more before making any promises.

[vaindil]

One potential fix that I just thought of would be a new tool to automatically change the direction of all segments on the screen to two-way, but I'll have to look into that more before making any promises.

That could be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

Yeah, that's why I need to look into it. There are a lot of considerations to take into account when looking at something like this. If it were implemented it would likely be locked pretty high. Again, no promises about anything, I was just spitballing.

[vaindil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tool always seemed to retain junction nodes when they were needed to prevent problems with loops.

I understand that it could *potentially* cause issues, but most of TB could *potentially* cause issues if mis-used. I, and some other editors I have chatted with on the topic, just want to know if there was an actual widespread problem with people using the tool, or was it done because of potential "what-if" situations. If it is the latter, then editors need to be allowed to give some feedback on how we can come up with a workable tool that addresses some of the concerns without crippling the tool as it has been.

The #1 concern with this script is potential abuse or accidental mistakes. The change was made because it was a bug, this was not intended behavior. It remains unintended behavior--if a road has a restricted turn, even if unconfirmed, then the junction is not "unnecessary". I'm sorry that this has caused problems, I really am (I've edited a decent amount of basemap), but the tool was never intended to function this way. We won't be reverting the change, it was done for a reason and that reason remains valid.

[vaindil]

Before I put on my tinfoil hat and assume Toolbox and URO+ are conspiring to grab all my browsing data, I wanted to double check that the new toolbox permissions to google.com chrome warned me about are so that you can get the date on the Street View?

Well, no one said we aren't....

The script now downloads a Google spreadsheet for localization. It makes things easier to navigate and allows the TbCCs to change things as needed. The permission is for that sheet.

[vaindil]

additional permission is for what?

One page back:
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p1248207

is it this one? still don't understand, actually..
"The script now downloads a Google spreadsheet for localization. It makes things easier to navigate and allows the TbCCs to change things as needed. The permission is for that sheet."

Anyway, thanks for the great work and update, can select the highlight layer again, yeay

Fancy Permalinks has different links depending on the current country in WME's view. The TbCCs are the one designated person per country who is able to change these and decide which permissions are granted to various ranks in that country. The spreadsheet allows that to be customized much more easily--the script now grabs the spreadsheet and pulls the links from there instead of having them hardcoded into the script itself. The permission for google.com is necessary because the script now also accesses Google to get the script.

[vaindil]

So why can't we try to come up with an alternative instead of just shutting down discussion on it?

If abuse of the tool isn't the driving concern, then that means there is a solution that could be had.

What would you propose? If we ignore the abuse aspect, how is the script supposed to tell what's "allowed" vs "not allowed"? Do we just ignore the fact that they're unconfirmed and set all turns to allowed even though that may not be the case? This isn't something we've arbitrarily decided, several champs and RCs were asked and the response was a very clear "don't do it". In general the idea was understood and appreciated, but because of the potential abuse to the map the idea was rejected.