waze.com

robindlc wrote:Hi all,

I did have a really estrange behavior today...

I'm in the office, with a company computer... I had occasionally entered the editor from here, but I didn't have the validator installed.

I received by e-mail a request (with permalink) to enable a turn... I followed the link, which automatically opened the WME and to my surprise loaded also the validator... Is that normal?

Filter by city does this.

And Validator already has some alt name support -- one of the checks is "Empty alternate street." You can't create this sort of problem anymore, but if a segment is currently set up with an alt city name but no street name, it will ight up.

BellHouse wrote:

berestovskyy wrote:1. No road continuation (for Primary Streets and up)
2. No right* turn (for any drivable road)
3. Geometry points are too close (for any drivable road)

1. and 3. seem ok for me.

I don't get the idea behind 2. You want to mark all right/left turns that are disabled (red arrow)? What's so special about a turn of around 90° angle?

I think the idea is that while it is common to restrict left turns, it is uncommon to restrict right turns, unless there is a very sharp angle.

In gridlocked areas they are sometimes restricted. Sometime,s they are also restricted if there is a complex traffic pattern with traffic coming form too many directions, or if the street after the turn is very short.

Let me guess, left over from the earlier incarnation that actually made changes?

> - Validator now skips locked segments, so the locks may be used to hide issues for low-level users.

I don't like this one. I'm an AM, and if there's an error in the setup of an interstate in my area, I want to know about it. I can choose to ignore it (lots of validator stuff depends on context or is non-urgent).

However, if I think it might affect routing, I will request an unlock/fix.

Lest I be called an ingrate, my thanks for the whole system. It has helped me immeasurably.

dbraughlr wrote:

CBenson wrote:To get the roundabout instruction to work correctly on this roundabout, I had to not have the segments connect at the same point.

I do not consider traffic circles (e.g., Washington Circle to be roundabouts. They are circular roads controlled by traffic lights. In a real roundabout, traffic does not stop and roads do not cross. However, I do somewhat see how instructions to enter and exit the circle could be useful.

The question of roundabout versus traffic circle has been discussed a number of times before. Since Waze doesn't have a separate traffic circle equivalent to roundabout, they are all roundabouts. This is also consistent with user expectations due to users not knowing (and not caring) about the difference between the two, and common experience across other GPS and mapping systems.

Validator is no longer highlighting issues on the map for me. If I click a problem segment, it does give me the list of things wrong with it, but there's no color coding anymore.

I have tried disabling all other scripts. I have made sure that the highlight issues on the map option is enabled.

The script is obviously not dead, because it does display issues on the highlighted segment.

Windows 7, Chrome 34.0.1847.137 m (current version), Tampermonkey is loading Validator 0.9.9

CBenson wrote:

lg1992 wrote:Now, as landmarks have been changed with places that have categories and sub-categories, I occasionally meet a place with a general category only. It would be nice to have the Validator to mark such places.

If done, I'd like this to be optional. The sub-categories are hardly comprehensive. Many of the places around me only have a general category as none of the sub-categories are appropriate.

Agreed. I don't really see a need for it at all. Even if they were more comprehensive, we don't have any rules currently discouraging use of the upper level categories.

ispyisail wrote:Hi all

I would like a custom check for for segments with "no name" and over "50 meters" long?

Is this possible?

and can anybody suggest how to do it?

try this:
template: ${street}:${length}
expression: /^:([0-9]{3,5}|[5-9][0-9]$)/

Matches from 50-99999 (note: includes 50, not just 51, and will not find any that are 100km or more)

Also note that this is not specific to road type. You might want to exclude PLRs, for example.

Just FYI, here is the list of codes for each ${type}:

1 Street
2 Primary Street
3 FW
4 Ramp
5 Walking trail
6 MH
7 mH
8 Dirt
9 Unassigned?
10 Boardwalk
11-15 Unassigned?
16 Stairway
17 Private
18 Railroad
19 Runway
20 PLR
21 Service rd

Putting it at the end (the $ says there can't be anything after it, so 1-Street is not confused with 10-Boardwalk or 16-Stairway, etc.):

template: ${street}:${length}:${type}
expression: /^:[0-9]{3,}:[1-46-8]$/

This says street name is blank (nothing between start and first colon), length has at least 3 digits ([0-9] is any digit, {3,} means 3 or or of that), and [1-46-8] means any single digit except 0, 5, or 9, which most of the common types that you would expect to have a name, except that ramp may not have a name. Railroad should probably also be included, in which case:

expression for nameless >=100m of types expecting a name (which EXCLUDES ramps): /^:[0-9]{3,}:([1-36-8]|18)$/

Excuse the RegEx tutorial

Waze development and Validator apparently have different definitions of road overlap and sharp angles. Recently Waze has started making available "reports" to RCs, so that we can go through the map and fix them so they don't cause routing issues. I have noticed that Waze uses a stricter definition than Validator, and it would probably be useful to have Validator use the same expectations.