enhket wrote:what would be superb is if validator was able to suggest people to "downgrade" or "upgrade" a road type based in road classification rules and ... speed

This would be quite easy to do. But it is not something that we would want where roads are classified by function not speed.

Perhaps the branch to take here is to make an api for the Validator so that people can customize what validations they want. It should be easy to insert your function CustomValidations() into the array of functions that Validator calls for each segment. People could script and share all the "validations" they like.

sketch wrote:it's because of known navigation errors when segments share end-nodes.

Let's consider first a one-way terminal loop.

What is the known navigation error in this situation?
How do you correct it?

robindlc wrote:Do you think it could be possible to link the language of Validator to the one selected in the WME

This could be a problem because as I understand localization, the rules applicable to roads in Spain cite the Spanish wiki and the corresponding validation messages are in Spanish.

ituajr wrote: Does this mean errors on nodes outside the user's editable area are not supposed to be flagged?

Please specify that you checked the option "Exclude non-editable segments".

A Railroad segment must not be at a junction with another type.

A Runway/taxiway segment must not be at a junction with another type.

There must not be a junction with any drivable type and any non-drivable type.

A ramp must be connected at both ends and the junction at one end must have a freeway/highway/ramp segment.

pumrum wrote:Highlight Non-drivable segments that form junctions with segments of a different type.

I think that junctions between walking path, boardwalk, and stairway are fine.

CBenson wrote:These segments have been ramps for quite some time and I've never found enough of a reason to change them.

Yes, those should fail validation. Then someone would have a good reason to change them if the wiki is not reason enough.

levin wrote:we also have many old streets with spaces instead of names

If this is the only reason, then this is a good reason to have a separate validation that the name must contain something more than whitespace and punctuation. Thus two letters are valid, two spaces are not.

sketch wrote: Toolbox helps to some extent, but having to comb at Zoom 4 to load street type segments takes much, much longer than a Zoom 0 or 1 scan.

It sounds like a fix to Toolbox would be the best. Toolbox should allow the entry of some selection criteria and along with suitably limiting criteria, a scan over a wider area.

berestovskyy wrote:19.02.2014 v0.7.0:
- UPD #101 'Closed road': default marker is '(Closed)'

I think what we are saying is that "(closed)" in a new way to exclude or include roads for a US construction zone.

Any US road name containing "CONST ZN" (and some variants) is invalid in all contexts regardless of construction zone exclusion. The error is that the name is invalid and should be updated either because the construction zone has expired or the name needs to be changed to have the "(closed)" suffix.