Wow. Maybe add it to your list of optional checks?berestovskyy wrote:Say if we have 500 segments at zoom 4, we have to make ~500x500/2 = 125000 comparisons (sometimes non-trivial). I'm not sure if we can optimize something here...
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
I could have missed the discussion on this one, but how does this determine it is unnecessary? I assume the subsequent ramps or streets are named.berestovskyy wrote:02.02.2014 v0.5.9:
- NEW for ALL: 'Unneeded name on one-way Ramp'
However, I have seen plenty of very long ramps or when they are around corners where the initial exit sign naming is not the same as either of the secondary ramp split points.
Maybe this is only important if the initial segment length is too short and when TTS reports the first name it takes longer than the drive time to the next split causing the driver to miss the turn.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
I am not sure what this means by your description of "turn enabled". Many of the one way ramps in the US will lead to other one way ramps with a turn enabled. I presume this is getting lost in the translation.berestovskyy wrote:If this one-way Ramp has a turn enabled to another one-way Ramp. Here is an example: permalinkkentsmith9 wrote:I could have missed the discussion on this one, but how does this determine it is unnecessary?
Sorry, maybe the condition is not sufficient for US, so please let me know if I shall disable the check for US or add more ifs.
Either way I do think we should consider disabling it in the US. I don't know of any situation where the name in the ramp causes problems except the point I made about short ramp segments possibly. In that case maybe we do some tests to see when it is too short and then you give the warning.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
Found a situation with a roundabout giving a warning "Same endpoints drivable segments." In this case assuming the reports that the routing engine has trouble with these by not starting people in the right place, a roundabout with the two segments going only opposite directions would force the routing server to only go through one way or the other. And worst case someone starting on the roundabout or ending on the roundabout can likely figure out the route in that circle.
Otherwise we have to add a node in the middle of one of the two segments on the roundabout. That seems like unnecessary work.
Otherwise we have to add a node in the middle of one of the two segments on the roundabout. That seems like unnecessary work.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
I don't think "junction at one end must have a freeway/highway/ramp segment" is true based on my knowledge.dbraughlr wrote:A ramp must be connected at both ends and the junction at one end must have a freeway/highway/ramp segment.
Unless someone can identify the problem (which then can be added to the Wiki), it is certainly possible for one (Primary) Street to pass over another (Primary) Street and have a connector between them marked as a Ramp. In that situation a Ramp is fully legitimate, but not required.Wiki - How to label the connector type wrote:Ramps in Waze should only be used for situations where two roadways have a grade separated intersection or if the situation matches one of the Exceptions listed below. {Note the exceptions are for Ramps at grade.}
I propose the Validator not restrict the roadway type on either junction of a Ramp, but I am OK with the number of connections being required.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
I agree 100% with all elements of your comment.AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Kent, I think the vast majority of situations will have a ramp connecting to a mH, MH or Fwy. However, you are correct, and I have these in my area, where primary streets cross over and there are ramps used to connect them. I believe these are legitimate use of ramps as well. "Grade-separated" doesn't exclude Primary Street type.kentsmith9 wrote:I don't think "junction at one end must have a freeway/highway/ramp segment" is true based on my knowledge.
Unless someone can identify the problem (which then can be added to the Wiki), it is certainly possible for one (Primary) Street to pass over another (Primary) Street and have a connector between them marked as a Ramp. In that situation a Ramp is fully legitimate, but not required.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
If I understand dbraughlr's comment, he is not saying there is a problem with the current use of Ramps that the validator should prevent, but is proposing a change be made in the future. Therefore the Validator should allow ramps to connect between two Streets or Primary Streets as well as the Highway class types since they do exist in real life and do not cause routing problems.CBenson wrote:Maybe this discussion should be split from this thread again, but I disagree with this statement. The guidance in the US, as noted above, is that ramps are to be used for grade separated connections. We could discuss changes, but "highway function" is term that we can endlessly debate. Again we should likely have that debate elsewhere.dbraughlr wrote:Simply put, there is not Road Type for connectors below the class of highways (freeways, MH, mH).kentsmith9 wrote: Unless someone can identify the problem
...
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
What do we think about moving much of the content in the various posts like Error Check List into the Wiki. We could put this list into a sortable table with the columns:
- Number
- Name
- Description
- Category (warnings, errors, etc.)
- Countries
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
Understood. Is there any chance to have the tool resort the list into some order (numeric, alphabetical, type, etc)? Or is it in one now and I don't recognize it?berestovskyy wrote:Frankly I'm happy with the current list of checks, because it takes me no time to update the list. I just click Settings->About->Available checks and copy the list into my forum post.kentsmith9 wrote:What do we think about moving much of the content in the various posts like Error Check List into the Wiki.
Also understood. The user community controls the Wiki, so we can do whatever makes the most sense if the people doing the work have time.berestovskyy wrote:I had an idea to create a wiki page with the descriptions and screenshots of the issues, but at the moment I have no time for that even if it's now allowed by Waze staff. Sorry
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
I forgot about that post. Let me go ask the question because I am told something different and have made changes on behalf of Waze because they say the Wiki is solely maintained by the user community.AlanOfTheBerg wrote:At that time, I "spoke" for the community in that I didn't think it was a good idea. Also, previously, Waze didn't want the wiki to document too many details about userscripts. If that has changed...berestovskyy wrote:Well, in December I got the opposite answer, so I decided put everything on the forum...kentsmith9 wrote:The user community controls the Wiki, so we can do whatever makes the most sense
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/wiki.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/ccp.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s1000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/p2000.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c6s.png
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.5.7 (BETA) / 29.01.2014