[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, JustinS83, Glodenox

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 1.0.4 / 24.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:31 pm

sketch wrote:
PesachZ wrote:As far as the highlight, my experience it only checks for two segments connected to the same junction, at the same turn angle . So an apparently overlapping segment with a dogleg wouldn't get a highlight, provided the dogleg caused the two segments to have different turn angles.

Definitely not so – I see it often with very low but nonzero angles, for example in ramps with long acceleration/deceleration lanes where the last geometry handle is pretty far from the junction node but pretty close to the other segment (on the other axis). This comes up mostly when I'm editing freeways.

I should have clarified, when I said at the same turn angle, I meant ±2°. So to rephrase "a segment will only be considered overlapping another segment, if A) they both share at least one junction node, AND B) they have identical turn angles (± 2°) at the shared junction node. If there is a dogleg changing the angle of one segment so it no longer has the same angle (± 2°) as the other segment at at least one shared junction node, then it will not be considered overlapping even if the entire middle of the segments are directly on top of each other"


I reiterate it unnecessary for segments to be laid directly above each other, and it makes for harder editing in the future, very near adjacent placement should do fine, and if an overlap is desired only the very beginning would need to overlap.


Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.4 / 24.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:31 pm

Such intricate edits deserve to locked to prevent 'fixing'. If I ever (and it's rare) make an intentionally overlapping segment, I all my RC to lock it at rank 6.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:36 pm

roadtechie wrote:Maybe this has been brought up before. But, I would love for validator to flag any cameras that are in states that do not allow cameras. I live in Indiana which does not allow any cameras at all in the state except for toll booth enforcement. If Validator would flag all of the cameras it would make my daily deletion of cameras a LOT easier!

Are the cameras you are deleting being confirmed by other editors, or just reported?

Besides if all cameras are illegal isn't the presence of the icons enough of a 'flag', unless you are looking for a list of cameras in a report.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:17 am

Just to note I've come across a bunch of "service roads" which should have been mapped as Primary Streets. On the east coast (at least in NY metro area) we refer to frontage roads colloquially, and even on some DOT signage as "Service Roads", which leads lots of editor to choose the Waze 'service road' type for those roads instead.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:19 am

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.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:22 am

Taco909 wrote:
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.

I have not been getting Validator flags for the "red" highlights since the WME dustup a few weeks ago that "broke" many of the scripts.

I am not getting highlights, or entries in the reports, for no inbound connection, no outbound connection, and of course, revcon. All I've been seeing is extraneuous nodes and "no connection".

For your situation, would it not be appropriate to add a 5m one-way segment?

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.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:35 pm

berestovskyy wrote:...

PS. For the unneeded node A/B you can change something insignificant in the segment's properties as a workaround. Try to change lock or alt name for instance...


The lock doesn't seem to be enough of a difference to stop the validator flag for unneeded node

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 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: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 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: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 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: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

PreviousNext

Return to Addons, Extensions, and Scripts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher

cron