Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:54 am
Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:40 pm
ispyisail wrote:Any chance you could expand the your example for PLR exclusion?
Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:25 pm
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?!?
Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:12 pm
Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm
bummerdude69 wrote:1) I'd guess the longer between pages (beeps), the more segments to check?
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.
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.
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]
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.
Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:34 pm
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...
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.
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?
Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:41 pm