[Script] WME Validator 1.1.20 / 03.11.2016

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.

Moderators: Unholy, bextein

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

DO NOT START a new thread unless it is about a new idea. Keep discussion of existing tools within the main thread for that tool.

The official index of these tools is the Community Plugins, Extensions and Tools wiki page.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby jemay » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:04 am

Both are correct... I don't remember reading anything that one way is better over the other, so Validator should be able to handle both.

The resolve this question which is better should be taken to a new thread.

5m One way vs Red Arrow Restriction?
Note: Q? Which has a higher penalty that Waze puts on wrong way on one-way vs through a Red Arrow?
jemay
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:26 am
Location: US South West - Lakewood, CA
Has thanked: 610 times
Been thanked: 895 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby doctorkb » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:11 am

PesachZ wrote:Take a look at the link which started this discussion, the satellite and street view images both confirm that it is a two way street on both sides of the barricade.

Unless you feel there should be a 5 meter segment at the do not enter sign? But that becomes an unnecessary hack, and an added node just to make validator happy. (Maybe not just to appease validator, as it could also allow the client to display the blockade)


I don't think I'd call that a hack. It's unfortunate that we can't have segments shorter than 5m without fouling up the routing engine, but I'd say that is the truth.

You have a span that appears to be about 3m that is one-way traffic only. I realize this could be marked as a red arrow (and since you show this, I can see that being correct), or it could be a one-way segment. The one-way segment may cause errors, as jemay mentions, but that's no different from a map error for disobeying a turn restriction.
doctorkb
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:17 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Has thanked: 617 times
Been thanked: 1603 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby jemay » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:00 am

Taco909 wrote:I've been using the one-way segment to make private driveways on gated communities exit-only. It avoids routing non-residents into the closed gate, once inside, the gates typically open automatically to allow exit, and residents with an opener or code will know they can use the gate and can ignore Waze directing them to the guard shack.
Note: Having the one way and when the resident ignore Waze and travels on the one-way (the wrong way) it will generate a MP. So a different solution is needed. - Lets talk about this issue in another thread... or PM... Thanks
jemay
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:26 am
Location: US South West - Lakewood, CA
Has thanked: 610 times
Been thanked: 895 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:46 pm

PesachZ wrote:Node A on this segment is being flagged as not needed, even though it is there to show a legitimate turn restriction. The map is actually accurate as is, but the node is being flagged by validator.

This is a 2-way road segment with a barrier in the middle only allowing eastbound through traffic, however it is still a 2 way road on either side of the barrier. Westbound traffic is restricted through this junction.


doctorkb wrote:I'm having trouble thinking of a case where you'd want a red arrow on a two-segment node... Unless one of the segments is one-way.

Take a look at the link which started this discussion, the satellite and street view images both confirm that it is a two way street on both sides of the barricade.

Unless you feel there should be a 5 meter segment at the do not enter sign? But that becomes an unnecessary hack, and an added node just to make validator happy. (Maybe not just to appease validator, as it could also allow the client to display the blockade)

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1979 times
Been thanked: 2173 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby doctorkb » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:26 pm

I'm having trouble thinking of a case where you'd want a red arrow on a two-segment node... Unless one of the segments is one-way.
doctorkb
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:17 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Has thanked: 617 times
Been thanked: 1603 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby taco909 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:41 pm

PesachZ wrote:Validator flags are just that, flags of a potential error. The reason validator doesn't actually did anything is because they want human editor eyes to actually confirm that something needs to be fixed first. Looking at the segment, seeing the restriction and the rank lock, should tell any editor to confirm on satellite or street view before changing it, or send the previous editor a pm. An editor who doesn't know to do that on a locked segment, usually doesn't deserve that rank. On a side note we could also leave a [NOTE] UR describing the details, but I felt it wasn't necessary here with the clear GSV images.

I don't disagree with that at all.
If it is locked above L1, then we shouldn't encounter an editor blindly clearing it (and it would not show on the L1's Validator report)
taco909
Map Editor - Level 4
Map Editor - Level 4
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:05 am
Location: Los Angeles Area
Has thanked: 720 times
Been thanked: 640 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:30 pm

Taco909 wrote:
PesachZ wrote:The red flag would be expected, the blue unneeded flag I'm asking to be fixed so it considers turn restrictions and allowed U-turns
Lock level didn't do it for me here

Make sense, though I don't like leaving the red flag if there is a legitimate way to clear it, if only to prevent a new editor working from a Validator script from opening the restriction (which would then show the blue alert, so he then deletes the node)

That's why I brought up the one-way segment. It avoids both alerts (if the u-turn is set) at the small cost of the time penalty for the one extra junction (and this situation is likely going to be on a small street that we probably don't want to encourage detour route-through anyway).

I've been using the one-way segment to make private driveways on gated communities exit-only. It avoids routing non-residents into the closed gate, once inside, the gates typically open automatically to allow exit, and residents with an opener or code will know they can use the gate and can ignore Waze directing them to the guard shack.

Simply having a turn restriction on a single node should cause any editor to do a double-take. First look (in your case) shows a high ranking editor name, but that could be assumed to be from FC. A more experienced editor would move in closer on SV and notice the lack of UR to confirm... the one-way segment would provide a flag to a less experienced editor that says "This is not a mistake, I did this for a reason"

It would be very helpful if WME were to include a comment field on junction and segment ID database entries. If that were done, then Validator could include the comment in the report page on any alert.

Validator flags are just that, flags of a potential error. The reason validator doesn't actually did anything is because they want human editor eyes to actually confirm that something needs to be fixed first. Looking at the segment, seeing the restriction and the rank lock, should tell any editor to confirm on satellite or street view before changing it, or send the previous editor a pm. An editor who doesn't know to do that on a locked segment, usually doesn't deserve that rank. On a side note we could also leave a [NOTE] UR describing the details, but I felt it wasn't necessary here with the clear GSV images.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1979 times
Been thanked: 2173 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby taco909 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:01 pm

PesachZ wrote:The red flag would be expected, the blue unneeded flag I'm asking to be fixed so it considers turn restrictions and allowed U-turns
Lock level didn't do it for me here

Make sense, though I don't like leaving the red flag if there is a legitimate way to clear it, if only to prevent a new editor working from a Validator script from opening the restriction (which would then show the blue alert, so he then deletes the node)

That's why I brought up the one-way segment. It avoids both alerts (if the u-turn is set) at the small cost of the time penalty for the one extra junction (and this situation is likely going to be on a small street that we probably don't want to encourage detour route-through anyway).

I've been using the one-way segment to make private driveways on gated communities exit-only. It avoids routing non-residents into the closed gate, once inside, the gates typically open automatically to allow exit, and residents with an opener or code will know they can use the gate and can ignore Waze directing them to the guard shack.

Simply having a turn restriction on a single node should cause any editor to do a double-take. First look (in your case) shows a high ranking editor name, but that could be assumed to be from FC. A more experienced editor would move in closer on SV and notice the lack of UR to confirm... the one-way segment would provide a flag to a less experienced editor that says "This is not a mistake, I did this for a reason"

It would be very helpful if WME were to include a comment field on junction and segment ID database entries. If that were done, then Validator could include the comment in the report page on any alert.
taco909
Map Editor - Level 4
Map Editor - Level 4
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:05 am
Location: Los Angeles Area
Has thanked: 720 times
Been thanked: 640 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:44 pm

Taco909 wrote:
PesachZ wrote:Adding an extraneous segment would stop the validator flag, but That adds two nodes instead of one into the database. I think Validator should compare segment properties across a junction, an not deem it unnecessary if it is separating two segments which different properties, (i.e. lock levels, elevation, name, alt name, type), as well as any turn restrictions including allowed u-turns.

I don't think turn restrictions were ever enough to avoid a flag... in fact, it would result in a "red" inbound/outbound connectivity warning flag rather than the "blue" extra node flag.
The connectivity flag could be avoided by the addition of the one-way segment and enabling the u-turn.

I thought that lock level was enough to avoid the extra node flag. Elevation and name are unless something changed on elevation lately.

The red flag would be expected, the blue unneeded flag I'm asking to be fixed so it considers turn restrictions and allowed U-turns
Lock level didn't do it for me here

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1979 times
Been thanked: 2173 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby taco909 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:39 pm

PesachZ wrote:Adding an extraneous segment would stop the validator flag, but That adds two nodes instead of one into the database. I think Validator should compare segment properties across a junction, an not deem it unnecessary if it is separating two segments which different properties, (i.e. lock levels, elevation, name, alt name, type), as well as any turn restrictions including allowed u-turns.

I don't think turn restrictions were ever enough to avoid a flag... in fact, it would result in a "red" inbound/outbound connectivity warning flag rather than the "blue" extra node flag.
The connectivity flag could be avoided by the addition of the one-way segment and enabling the u-turn.

I thought that lock level was enough to avoid the extra node flag. Elevation and name are unless something changed on elevation lately.

Edit: Just verified, elevation is enough to avoid the flag. Lock is not.
Last edited by taco909 on Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
taco909
Map Editor - Level 4
Map Editor - Level 4
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:05 am
Location: Los Angeles Area
Has thanked: 720 times
Been thanked: 640 times

PreviousNext

Return to Addons, Extensions, and Scripts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bill473