sketch wrote:A Validator check for first letter notwithstanding initial compass directions is fine ...

I am saying that this is necessary to make check #94 complete - and that checking every word against a list cannot substitute for checking the first actual word alone. So we need a list of words that are ignored at the beginning of a name ("E", "N", "S", "W", "to"). A note that false positives are theoretically possible is fine by me.

kentsmith9 wrote: Thanks for the list. Is this list agreed by the whole USA community? I am not questioning your accuracy,

No. Go right ahead. I just made up the list myself as I was replying. It is not canon or accurate.

kentsmith9 wrote: Maybe the problem is berestovskyy's message was for all countries and yours was only for the USA?

But if that is the case, in California we have plenty of Spanish roads, so if "la" and "de" are allowed in other countries, why not allow it in the US?

I cannot comment much on other countries.

In California, we have many road names derived from Spanish, but "La" and "El" are always capitalized; "Del" is capitalized when it is the first real word of the name.

Rules for other countries do not necessary apply to the US.
They are capitalized in Mexico, so why shouldn't they be capitalized in the USA?

Please move these posts to that thread (which was for the two-way ramp problem).

A bowtie U-turn is not too sharp. These turns probably can be detected as a turn from a one-way street to a one-way street with the same or similar name.

Spreading the nodes can lead to an incorrect "stay right" instruction for traffic continuing straight through the intersection or missing road reports for drivers making the U-turn.

berestovskyy wrote:Validator does not report too-sharp bow-ties.
...
Sure, Validator can look for similar street names, but I guess it will eliminate any use of this check, because the check basically was designed to detect situations like this...

Yes, this is just a transition from divided to undivided. I thought that it was a simple case for demonstration. I didn't know that you had logic to detect an intersection.

A transition like this is valid and should be permitted.
What error would ever be missed by permitting this specific configuration?

1. The U-turn must be allowed.
2. Widening the U-turn could give rise to "Stay right" instructions for traffic going straight through.
3. Moving the split will result in Missing Road MPs when drivers make the legal U-turn.

Regardless, the example you gave doesn't match the transition scenario at all and would be detected because of either:

1. The junction does not have a two-way street splitting into two one-way streets departing at less than 60 degrees from the two-way and within 90 degrees of each other. Or,
2. The names of the one-way lanes do not begin with the name of the two-way street.

An at-grade connector is a one-way street that is usually unnamed. The duplicate right turn on the two-way portion should be disallowed.

As long as we are quoting the wiki:

NOTE: Be aware of the geometry used in the bow tie. If the angles are too steep (45 degrees or greater) a driver traveling along one of the one-way segments may be told to "turn" or "stay" at the intersection instead of receiving no instruction.

sketch wrote: If a distinction can be made between at-grade connector too-sharp turns and transition too-sharp turns, …

I gave two rules which should be adequate to isolate the vast majority of divided↔undivided transition.
I think they are easily distinguished from intersections with AGCs. The most obvious being that the two-way segment enters and leaves the junction. In a transition, the two-way stops at the junction.

I have not encountered this bug. Enough people have that it deserves its own thread.

The results should update dynamically when you change elements. Otherwise, press the χ icon to delete old results.