[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 1.1.7 / 06.03.2015

Postby kirkosaurus » Thu May 07, 2015 12:06 pm

A quick and dirty temporary fix is to set the clock on your PC back a day or two and the validator will work just fine.
Area Manager for Middle Tenn.
[ img ]
kirkosaurus
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:52 pm
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.20 / 03.11.2016

Postby kirkosaurus » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:20 pm

bcea777 wrote:
dbcm wrote:valFix 1.0.3 is out
https//dbcm.github.com/waze/valfix/valfix.user.js


Link didn't work for me.


You need to add the colon after the "https"
Area Manager for Middle Tenn.
[ img ]
kirkosaurus
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:52 pm
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.16 / 29.01.2016

Postby kkesley » Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:00 pm

Installed and tested I recommend all very good [Script] WME Validator 1.1.16 ;)
kkesley
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:48 am
Has thanked: 2309 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.16 / 29.01.2016

Postby kkesley » Tue May 24, 2016 11:38 pm

with the new update of the editor is not working the Validator awaiting update... hugs ;)
kkesley
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:48 am
Has thanked: 2309 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.2 / 04.07.2014

Postby kodi75 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:40 am

Work-around for the expired version: Set your computer clock back a couple days ...
kodi75
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:43 am
Location: Central Maryland
Has thanked: 880 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.9.8 (BETA) / 15.04.2014

Postby kpouer » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:57 pm

Hi,
an error highlight that could be implemented:

time or vehicle restriction on a single direction segment with restriction in the wrong direction:

For example the segment is A->B but it has restriction that are for B->A. Those are invisible when editing them, you have to change the segment direction to be able to remove them.
Area manager entre Paris et l'Auvergne
Coordinateur France
Country Manager Algérie http://www.facebook.com/WazeAlgerie & twitter: http://twitter.com/WazeAlgerie
Country Manager west Africa
kpouer
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 7302
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:47 pm
Location: France, Paris
Has thanked: 524 times
Been thanked: 2170 times

New thoughts

Postby krikketdoug » Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:19 am

I know I'm just a jr editor, and have found this to be a porwerful tool. Im very glad for my informal mentor for pointing me this way. :)

And please forgive me in advance if I go into too much detail. I tend to overexplain, but am trying to keep things to a minimum. I've already edited out a few bits.

I was only planning on reading part of the thread and commenting, but was learning too much to stop reading every message, even though due to work constraints it took me a couple of days. (Okay, I took some time off to read a book and watch some TV, but you get the idea...)

A few of checks that I'd like to propose be added:

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
Last edited by krikketdoug on Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Krikket
a.k.a. Doug Krick

[ img ][ img ]
Chicago Speed and Traffic Cameras
https://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/traffic/
krikketdoug
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:01 am
Location: Villa Park, Illinois, USA
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: New thoughts

Postby krikketdoug » Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:30 pm

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. There is a reason I'm a timid editor when I'm outside my normal area. :D


Krikket wrote: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]

I don't mind the idea, but I think Places is still too young to start incorporating things into Validator about it -- especially in the rest of the world.


Agreed. But it is a thought for the future as Places matures.
Krikket
a.k.a. Doug Krick

[ img ][ img ]
Chicago Speed and Traffic Cameras
https://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/traffic/
krikketdoug
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:01 am
Location: Villa Park, Illinois, USA
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: New thoughts

Postby krikketdoug » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:00 pm

berestovskyy wrote:
krikketdoug wrote:1> Walking trails and other non-drivable road types that have a elevation of something other than -5 be flagged.

You can use a custom check in Validator for that:
template: ${typeRank}:${elevation}
regexp: /^5:(?!-5)/


Thanks for the code. Now when I get the round tuit to figure out how to use the custom check... :D

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...

krikketdoug wrote:2> Now that the US is moving to a Functional Classification system,

I did not hear about US Functional Classification, so I can't comment this, sorry.[/quote]

Sure you can! That was just the reason why I thought of the check, as in my area a lot of road types are changing and sometimes things are missed. That doesn't invalidate the concept elsewhere.
Krikket
a.k.a. Doug Krick

[ img ][ img ]
Chicago Speed and Traffic Cameras
https://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/traffic/
krikketdoug
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:01 am
Location: Villa Park, Illinois, USA
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: New thoughts

Postby krikketdoug » Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:39 pm

sketch wrote:I believe the elevation 9 runway thing was suggested by me in another thread — because if runways interact with other roads at all, they'll be on top.


That very well could be. I never touch them, so I didn't make certain to memorize that detail. I don't even touch walking trails, and other non-drivable stuff other than to correct what's already out there by the established guidelines. And then I double-check before I do.
Last edited by kentsmith9 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed quote for readability
Krikket
a.k.a. Doug Krick

[ img ][ img ]
Chicago Speed and Traffic Cameras
https://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/traffic/
krikketdoug
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:01 am
Location: Villa Park, Illinois, USA
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 16 times

PreviousNext

Return to Addons, Extensions, and Scripts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jm6087, Mapman44