[Script] WME Color Highlights - 2.33 Sept 2020

[sketch]

Since the "average" speed data shown in the editor has no relation to the time-of-day-based routing which Waze actually uses, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the data.

That's previously shown in the editor. I haven't seen it in a month or so.

[sketch]

Sure, that's fair. My point is that if Waze doesn't think it's even worth showing in the editor anymore...

[sketch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the script calls it a U turn when it's actually possible (i.e., self-con on a two-way segment) and "Self-connectivity" if it's impossible (i.e., self-con on a one-way segment).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[sketch]

A selfcon is an allowed turn at the end of a segment back onto the same segment - and it doesn't matter whether or not the segment is one way.

A revconn is an allowed turn from one segment to a second one-way segment, where that turn violates the direction of the second segment.

Right, but that's not the distinction I was making. "Self-con" is only intrinsically a problem when it is on a one-way segment, since that's impossible. U-turns, which are a type of self-con (i.e., self-con on a two-way segment), are not intrinsically a problem, since they are possible, even if they are often not allowed.

A "true" self-con, or one-way self-con, is essentially the same problem as a rev-con, namely, that Waze has an allowed connection in a place where it is physically impossible due to one-way segments. A U turn, or two-way self-con, is essentially the same problem as an improperly-allowed turn restriction -- both are often set by people driving in ways they shouldn't, for example. It's still worth indicating U turns, since their arrows are not always visible, but it's still not as big a problem as true self-con, since there will be instances when it is properly allowed.

IIRC -- I can't check right now -- the color highlights script shows only true self-con as "self connectivity" (purple), and shows two-way self-con as "U turns" separately (teal).

[sketch]

I've also heard "10m" mentioned for U turn prevention. So that could be it.

[sketch]

With the 11m segment allowing the U-turn, there may be some geometry issues. There may be no "straight" path out of the short segment, in which case any path out of it can be used for routing.

So U turns will only be prevented where the segment is also useful as a left turn? That's interesting. I wasn't aware of the specific mechanics of the function. I like that.

[sketch]

3) Could we get an option to have "no name highlighting" only apply to specific road types? It is typical for parking lot roads, private roads, and often ramps and service roads to not have a name, and the highlighting only makes it busy. Usually, I want it for regular roads -- streets, primary streets, minor highways, major highways, and freeways. Sometimes ramps and service roads.

Private roads do often have names, though.

I do think it'd be a good idea to exclude the "no name" highlight from parking lot roads, and perhaps also to include a highlight for named parking lot roads.

The ramp highlight is useful for determining whether some ramp segments are perhaps unnecessarily named. I could see it being desirable to be able to turn the no-name highlight off for ramp segments temporarily, but having it off for ramps and on for at-grade connectors (not something you can program around) seems like it'd be an inconsistent experience.

[sketch]

I do think it'd be a good idea to exclude the "no name" highlight from parking lot roads, and perhaps also to include a highlight for named parking lot roads.

The ramp highlight is useful for determining whether some ramp segments are perhaps unnecessarily named. I could see it being desirable to be able to turn the no-name highlight off for ramp segments temporarily, but having it off for ramps and on for at-grade connectors (not something you can program around) seems like it'd be an inconsistent experience.

Cannot we achieve that using toolbox's sort option?

Which do you mean? Removing names from parking lot roads is easy to achieve with Toolbox, yes, so the separate highlight for named parking lot roads isn't necessary. With ramps, it's specific ramps that do and don't need names, so you need the visual.

The benefit of not highlighting parking lot roads is removing clutter, which doesn't affect and isn't affected by Toolbox.

[sketch]

Seems to be the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the soft turns/revcon/selfcon function in WMECH limited to rank 3 and above?

[sketch]

Oh gee, yet another link to private information that most editors have no access to, even some level 6 editors.

Edited to remove private link.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4

And so? As a mentor, you also have access to at least one private forum that most editors have no access to, even some level 6 editors.