Switch to full style
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.

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.
Post a reply

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:54 am

Sorry if I'm just remembering wrong, but is the scan supposed to pick up on custom checks and put them in the report?

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:40 pm

ispyisail wrote:Any chance you could expand the your example for PLR exclusion?

template: ${type}:${street}:${length}
expression: /^[1234678]::([0-9]{3,5}|[5-9][0-9]$)/

That will highlight for Street, Primary Street, Freeway, Ramp, Major Highway, Minor Highway, and Dirt Road. I think.

Re: That BEEPING Beeping!

Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:25 pm

An alternative to ${type} is ${typeRank}, which uses the following codes:

15 freeway
14 major highway
13 minor highway
12 ramp
11 primary street
10 street
9 service road
8 dirt road
7 parking lot road
6 private road
5 walking trail
4 pedestrian bdwk
3 stairway
2 railroad
1 runway

Kinda makes it easier if you wanna do, say, all public drivable roads (1[0-5]). Also a little easier to remember.

bummerdude69 wrote:Two questions
1) what does the various beeps mean? Seems to have a purpose, but haven't figured it out.
2) How do you turn that NOISE OFF?!? ;)

1) One beep per "screen", with a higher-pitched beep at the end.
2) Gear, wrench, uncheck "Enable sounds".

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:12 pm

How does it define "drivable"? Is that just everything from Freeway to Street and Ramp, or does it also include conditionally drivable roads like Private, PLot, and Dirt?

Re: That BEEPING Beeping!

Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm

bummerdude69 wrote:1) I'd guess the longer between pages (beeps), the more segments to check?

Yep, at least I believe so. When I scan an area that has both urban/suburban roads and large lakes/swamps, I get lots of really quick beeps and a number of well-spaced ones, with some in between (probably along the edges between built areas and swamps/lakes).

Re: New thoughts

Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:38 pm

krikketdoug wrote: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.

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.

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.

This could be good -- given 3 segments with the same name, if the segment in the middle has a different type than the segments on the ends, flag it. I imagine this would be a 'slow' check, but that's fine.

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.

kentsmith9 wrote:Validator and Toolbox both believe this segment should be straightened, but in my opinion is pulls the road a little too far off the actual road since it curves. It seems like it might be a little too aggressive in what they are both considering is a straight enough line.

The Validator-Toolbox highlights are pulled straight from Toolbox -- in other words, Validator is just reporting what Toolbox reports in its reports -- so only Toolbox's selection criteria will affect this (but I agree that Toolbox is too aggressive in this function).

Re: New thoughts

Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:34 pm

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.

krikketdoug wrote:
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...

That check is there because some countries used -5 walking trails to represent railroads, but since we got the directive to add railroads using the railroad type, we added that highlight.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:40 pm

kentsmith9 wrote:Before we do that, let's be sure we understand the turn issue. I saw a bunch of those errors flagged in CA. They were mostly at Bowtie intersections for the U-turns. I told Jemay I did not want to go through 500 bowties to tweak the angles if the route will still allow a car to do a U-turn there. I know a road would not generally allow a car to turn such a harsh angle, but when you are at a stop and doing a U-turn in an intersection you are going 3 miles per hour and you can do any angle.

Besides most of the bowtie intersections will be replaced by junction boxes (soon ;) ) so we should not be touching those intersections twice if not necessary.

Therefore we need to find out if those flagged issues were problems under general conditions vs. the routing server will NOT route through that harsh an angle.

And the entire point of a bowtie is to enable the restriction of U turns. There is no reason whatsoever to use a bowtie where U turns are allowed.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:31 pm

olestas wrote:Wait, what? U-turns work? They don't for me... And what with the junction boxes?

We're talking about split roads (dual carriageways) here.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.0.0 / 26.05.2014

Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:41 pm

I don't think Validator looks at the Places layer at all, though it is a nice idea.
Post a reply