[Script] WME Validator 2020.04.12 (PLACES BETA)

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, Glodenox, JustinS83

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 0.9.5 (BETA) / 07.04.2014

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:12 am

I have been working on smudged cities and found that a big source of the problems come from segments in the US that somehow have no state entered in the state name field. I don't think you can create a segment and not have a state entry, so somehow these segments get past the editor somewhere along the line.

When present they create a new city entry because that segment does not match the other segments around them. Once they are identified you simply update the segment state name. I am currently running a test in https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=251&t=81200 to track when the city layer gets corrected without posting the entries in the city smudge form. It may turn out they will not get updated ever without using the form.

I propose the validator identify these segments without a state. Further we can recommend posting that segment permalink in the smudged city form if my test results find no other solution.

Here is a segment with no state that you can test against.


Also, I searched the first post in this thread, but did not find the link to the Complete Search list. Can this link be added to the OP for simpler locating, or is there some reason we are hiding it on entry 50+ in this thread?
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: City Smudges

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:38 am

davielde wrote:Kent, you're actually the person that I eventually wanted to touch base with because it looks like there was a wiki update from mid-February that listed out the options under "Need assistance from the Waze team" with no guidance on what each option would do based on people's experience with using the form. I know that there is a dead thread in the Wiki Updates forum discussing smudges to some extent, but perhaps we can create a page update thread specifically for the smudge city and continue discussion there, or you could forgive me for resurrecting the old one? The wiki really needs to provide more insight into name versus english name, explain how Waze-provided cities have english names while editor-created ones do not, and a few other things.

I have no problem bringing up the Smudge thread in the Wiki if it is a continuation of the same or similar discussion. I personally would prefer to have single threads on a single page/topic in the Wiki to better track any prior related decisions for that same page.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.9.6 (BETA) / 08.04.2014

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:48 pm

berestovskyy wrote:Kent, it's always available under Settings->About->Available checks. If you click it over the US, Validator will show enabled/disabled checks for US. And I just added a red link to the OP ;)

- New for US #106 'No state name selected'

Great and Greater! :D
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:58 pm

I updated the Wiki page to reflect the new Firefox download links.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Postby kentsmith9 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:18 am

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.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: New thoughts

Postby kentsmith9 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:58 pm

sketch wrote:
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.

The Validator-Toolbox highlights are pulled straight from Toolbox -- in other words, Validator is just reporting what Toolbox reports in its reports -- so only Toolbox's selection criteria will affect this (but I agree that Toolbox is too aggressive in this function).

Thanks. I will move my comment to that thread.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: New thoughts

Postby kentsmith9 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:53 pm

krikketdoug wrote:
sketch wrote:I'm not sure how much of the rules support this, exactly. Railroads are to be set at -5, certainly, as are Walking Trails (if mapped at all), I believe, but a Pedestrian Boardwalk shouldn't always, necessarily. I think a lot of these rules are in flux.


I could have sworn I saw somewhere on the Wiki that all non-drivable roads should be -5 (except airline runways, which should be a 9) but that might just be a local agreement.

I could not find that detail in the primary Wiki page on Runways:
Main Wiki Page on Runways wrote:For aircraft at airports. Where a street also serves as a taxiway (such as in a community with through-the-fence access) map the street as a street. No drivable road should connect to or cross over any runway. A road may cross under a runway.
Each runway may be mapped as a single segment for identification purposes and locked to prevent lower ranking editors from attaching a road to the runway. Do not form junctions where runways cross. Name each runway using the FAA airport identifier, the word runway, and the runway designations with the lower number first (e.g., "KSMF Runway 16R-34L".)
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:31 am

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.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:14 am

ditchi56 wrote:Validator complains about this, coming up with errors 118, 119 & 78.

I just created a similar setup in my test area and found the following:

1. 118 and 119 seem resolvable by having the 2 degrees of separation recommended. I don't see why you have them actually overlapping if you then have a massive bump in the middle that will clearly be seen in the client. I have the two roads parallel each other by a small gap and it seems fine.

2. 78 is there for routing. Just split the toll segment and you: a) fix any routing issue if you start in one of those two segments, and b) solve the error message.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:01 pm

ditchi56 wrote:1. The two segments must start and end overlapping perfectly. If you have the 2 degrees of separation, you risk Waze generating unwanted "keep left" / "keep right" instructions.

I believe if both road names are the same, you will NOT get any instructions. I believe this has been tested many times and is the subject of this page on turn instructions. We have reviewed this logic and now Waze is confirming it is accurate.

ditchi56 wrote:There is no massive bump in the middle, the central separation is kept small so that it is only visible in WME at high zoom, and not at all noticeable in the client.

Two parallel roads with a small gap would appear as two roads in the client, which would be an inappropriate rendering of a single road on the ground.

My experience is that roads closer than about 2 meters apart cannot be visually separated in the client enabling two parallel segments to appear as one.

ditchi56 wrote:2. This solution has been running for six months now with no reported routing problems. I'm not sure whether this is because the segments are so short that Waze can start routing from the end rather than the middle without anyone noticing, or whether it is because it doesn't matter which segment it starts from. Either way, there is no routing issue here to resolve.

The routing problem for same two nodes for two segments is not something that would affect through routing in this example. It would only be if you started your routing on one of these two segments. Therefore the chance of a problem is extremely low if you don't add a node in the middle of one of them, but there is no down side to adding the node so why not do it for consistency in the logic?

ditchi56 wrote:Please refer to the Waze Wiki if you require further information.

Thanks for pointing out that link. I totally forgot Ianhouse created that page last November, but never linked it to any pages.

It appears that page should be reviewed with our current knowledge to update it and improve those recommendations. An entry in the Wiki forum thread already exists for this page. I will resurrect it to review it with our updated understanding.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1794 times

PreviousNext

Return to Addons, Extensions, and Scripts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: age4670, Mapman44, umopapisdn