krikketdoug wrote: 1> Walking trails and other non-drivable road types that have a elevation of something other than -5 be flagged. By running the script near my home, I found a few examples of this, so I have a feeling it's not that uncommon of an error.

2> Now that the US is moving to a Functional Classification system, I've found an odd segment here and there that don't match the new FC system. Each side of the segment has a different road type but the same street name. Usually it's a short segment between a parking lot and a cross street, but I'm wondering how many more are out there. From what I understand, the changing of the road type can cause routing problems. So I propose we check against that as well.

3> Another check that would probably have to be handled on the country level now that Landmarks has transisitioned to Places is a check on the new Places markers versus what the rules say they should be. For example, for a while a religious site was permitted while a simple church was not. On the other hand many editors concluded that any site that had hundreds of worshippers visiting it every day or was over a hundred years old (Hey! I'm in America! Here that is a long time!) or... You get the idea. In each country there should be (eventually) a list of approved typed of markers in the Wiki that could be used to compare what is used. [edited to remove additional unnecessary examples]

Much simpler under the new rules, if I understand everything correctly. Just mark them all places(points) instead of places(areas). [edited to remove a reference to the unnecessary examples]

Krikket

kentsmith9 wrote:Validator and Toolbox both believe this segment should be straightened, but in my opinion is pulls the road a little too far off the actual road since it curves. It seems like it might be a little too aggressive in what they are both considering is a straight enough line.

krikketdoug wrote:

berestovskyy wrote:But in fact at the moment Validator does the opposite. In some countries it highlights walking trails with elevation -5 (check #105).

Okay. Definately a country specefic thing then...

kentsmith9 wrote:Before we do that, let's be sure we understand the turn issue. I saw a bunch of those errors flagged in CA. They were mostly at Bowtie intersections for the U-turns. I told Jemay I did not want to go through 500 bowties to tweak the angles if the route will still allow a car to do a U-turn there. I know a road would not generally allow a car to turn such a harsh angle, but when you are at a stop and doing a U-turn in an intersection you are going 3 miles per hour and you can do any angle.

Besides most of the bowtie intersections will be replaced by junction boxes (soon ) so we should not be touching those intersections twice if not necessary.

Therefore we need to find out if those flagged issues were problems under general conditions vs. the routing server will NOT route through that harsh an angle.

olestas wrote:Wait, what? U-turns work? They don't for me... And what with the junction boxes?

krikketdoug wrote:An idea for another invalid street name check, that might be workable...

I was out on a drive and I heard a couple of times at different streets, "Turn right on Street Charles Road". Kind of obvious what the problem was when I thought about it. St. is the abbreviation for Saint and Street.

Given that Street would only be used at the end of the street name, but Saint would be used after the directional (if any) and before the name, could Validator look for St in this context?

Just a thought.

{street}
/(^|/ |[NEWS] |Rue )St /

SuperDave1426 wrote: @sketch: An activity done in public (aka Public Activity) is a world of difference from a rap sheet by the FBI. If you do want to make a comparison, however, there have been a number of court cases, both in the USA and other countries, where it's been deemed that when performing a public activity, an individual has no reasonable expectation to privacy. Since editing the Waze map is likewise a public activity, there is no reasonable expectation to an editor that those edits should be considered private.

Heck, if I screw something up and someone notices it, I want the person who found it to know who I am so they can contact me and let me know about it. I can't fix something, including an errant editing behavior, if I'm not informed about it.

And as I've already pointed out, given that the vast majority of editors here are going by a pseudonym of some kind or another, they've already got all the "privacy" that they should ever need WRT Waze. Sincerely, I really do fail to see what "privacy" implications there are in someone being able to search for, to see, all your edits on the map. I just don't see how much "power" that gives someone.

SuperDave1426 wrote: Personally, I'm a big fan of the new highlighting for non-ground level roads. It's already helped me spot and correct surface roads that somehow had been set to elevation -2 or +3...

--Dave