Discussion for the unofficial, community-developed addons, extensions and scripts built for the Waze Map Editor.

The official index of these tools is the Community Plugins, Extensions and Tools wiki page.
Post by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:Rule Walking Trail elevation = -5 is arbitrary. I did not see where anyone came forward to explain why he cares.
I did, two pages ago. "Some communities have been using Walking Trails at elevation -5 to signify railroads as a matter of editor policy."
That isn't an explanation of the error. Of what is this a useful check?

sketch wrote: I can't fathom any reason an actual walking trail would be set to elevation -5.
As a matter of editor policy, all non-drivable road types (including railroads, runways, boardwalks, stairs, and walking trails) have elevation set to -5 per established convention. -5 indicates that the segment is not to be attached to the drivable roadways "to prevent false system reporting that think the roads should be connected.".
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:I don't know of this convention
Regardless, my quote is from the wiki.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Last edited by dbraughlr on Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post by dbraughlr
Yes, I quoted from the Railroad section. Of course, -5 is guaranteed to be different from any road it crosses.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
Previously, unneeded nodes were reported for those used for change of elevation and road type also. I haven't re-tested.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
As for me, I like having a node at the gate. It makes it easier to find the point of access control between the public side and the private side even though there might be no reason to drive up to the gate when it is closed and it makes an "unneeded" node.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
Please update the FAQ. In particular, it should not use the word flashing.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote: - DISABLED for ALL: 'Same endpoints drivable segments'
I still receive this warning for segments with very distinct paths, often with one being much longer than the other. I think Kent is correct. It matters when the geometry of one segment is completely overlapped by the geometry of other segments. If the segments are several meters apart, then one cannot hide the other.

A segment which has a geometry point at least 5 m from any point along any other segment cannot be hidden by that segment.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote:It was enabled back in 0.5.8. At the moment this check does not report roundabouts.
I think it should not report any unless one of the junction angles is 0. I see the error when the junction angles are 90 degrees or more.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
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.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
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?
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times