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
Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:17 pm
Timbones wrote:Two ramps with the same name does NOT take up any more space in the database. It will be exactly the same as if one had no name. There's no advantage in removing names from ramps, even of they're not needed.
You've also hinted that ramp names are sometimes carefully created by editors to get the right instructions. This is another reason not to have this check....
Then I will respectfully concede. Like I said, my heart wasn't really in it anyway.
Perhaps we could use a "Note" for when the name on ramps going into a single ramp does not match. This would help in those situations where someone fixed one ramp to say "to I-75 N / Toledo" but left the other two as "to I- 75 N".
Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:24 pm
dbraughlr wrote:Rule Walking Trail elevation = -5 is arbitrary. I did not see where anyone came forward to explain why he cares.
I did, two pages ago. "Some communities have been using Walking Trails at elevation -5 to signify railroads as a matter of editor policy."
So while no, it shouldn't be enabled for all regions, there are places where it is a useful check.
I can't fathom any reason an actual
walking trail would be set to elevation -5.
Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:13 pm
dbraughlr wrote:That isn't an explanation of the error. Of what is this a useful check?
Railroads are not currently displayed in the client. That's why editors in some areas started marking railroads as "walking trails", so they'd be displayed in the client. But now we are told by staff that railroads will soon be displayed in the client, so all those -5 walking trails should be changed to railroads. Did I leave some of that out?
As a matter of editor policy, all non-drivable road types (including railroads, runways, boardwalks, stairs, and walking trails) have elevation set to -5 per established convention. -5 indicates that the segment is not to be attached to the drivable roadways "to prevent false system reporting that think the roads should be connected.".
I don't know of this convention, other than with railroads. Perhaps it is not so widespread as you think. In my area, pedestrian boardwalks are marked using normal elevation rules.
Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:52 pm
Road Types (USA) does not mention elevation for non-drivable roads other than (1) it must be different from any road it crosses, and (2) it should be -5 for railroads.https://www.waze.com/wiki/Road_Types_(USA
Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:14 pm
dbraughlr wrote:Yes, I quoted from the Railroad section. Of course, -5 is guaranteed to be different from any road it crosses.
OK, and I don't doubt that it isn't guaranteed. But that doesn't mean it's the rule. You're extrapolating a new rule from two existing rules. "Set every undrivable road to a different level than every road it crosses" and "set every railroad to -5" do not combine to mean "set every undrivable road to -5", because not every undrivable road is a railroad.
Walking trails at elevation -5 to represent railroads, on the other hand, was
a rule (in some places), and is now an obsolete rule. Hence the check (which should be limited to some places).
Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:21 pm
, in response to Alan/Timbones)
Consider someone going to one of the buildings near the gate, after the gate is closed. If Waze doesn't ignore restricted roads entirely, having the restriction on the whole segment would make Waze indifferent to which direction it came into the segment, and would be just as likely to send you through the closed gate as it would be to send you through the complex (the "possible" way). If Waze does
ignore restricted roads entirely, it'll send you to R806 instead of North Rd (inside the complex), which is unhelpful because those buildings are inside the fence.
Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:23 am
dbraughlr wrote:I think it should not report any unless one of the junction angles is 0. I see the error when the junction angles are 90 degrees or more.
I think you misunderstand the need for the error. It's not just to show hidden segments, it's because of known navigation errors when segments share end-nodes.
Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:12 am
Let's consider first a one-way terminal loop
What is the known navigation error in this situation?
How do you correct it?
I'm not sure what the problem would be on a one-way terminal loop, if any, but knowing which way to go from a dead-end isn't really a problem.
Where I have
seen numerous problem reports from segments which share endpoints is with simple parking lots and drive-thrus
and simple freeway parking areas
. I experienced the first personally in that same location. There have been a few threads on it; I don't have time to dig any of them up right now.
Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Is it possible to make a report that includes every street segment with a particular name? For instance, we name U turn segments "U turn" in the New Orleans area, but many have been named "U-Turn" and "U Turn". Trying to standardize all of them is a heck of a task, but being able to search "U-Turn" in Validator would make a big difference.
Toolbox helps to some extent, but having to comb at Zoom 4 to load street type segments takes much, much longer than a Zoom 0 or 1 scan.
Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:54 pm
Toolbox does not "scan" at all; it can only see what I can edit at a given zoom. The scan feature is Validator's great strength over other plugins, and it would be uniquely suited to this particular task. Not to mention it'd be a trivial addition to Validator, whereas adding a scanner to Toolbox would be a big change.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.