Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:00 am
sketch wrote:It would be nice to have the extension give a pop-up warning when a new version resets all your settings, btw.
Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:31 pm
berestovskyy wrote:ituajr wrote:Can roundabouts be excluded from the "same endpoint" test, please?
It was discussed here: page 7 and we decided to leave them. Let me know if I shall exclude roundabouts for you country.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:25 pm
berestovskyy wrote:kentsmith9 wrote:I could have missed the discussion on this one, but how does this determine it is unnecessary?
If this one-way Ramp has a turn enabled to another one-way Ramp. Here is an example: permalink
Sorry, maybe the condition is not sufficient for US, so please let me know if I shall disable the check for US or add more ifs.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:32 pm
kentsmith9 wrote:Otherwise we have to add a node in the middle of one of the two segments on the roundabout. That seems like unnecessary work.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:42 pm
berestovskyy wrote:03.02.2014 v0.5.10:
- NEW for ALL 'Too short segment' (less than 2m long)
kentsmith9 wrote:Found a situation with a roundabout giving a warning "Same endpoints drivable segments."
You might need to update Validator, since it was disabled few days ago:
- UPD 'Same endpoints drivable segments': roundabouts are temporarily excluded
Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:53 pm
sketch wrote:SuperDave1426 wrote:berestovskyy wrote:If this one-way Ramp has a turn enabled to another one-way Ramp. Here is an example: permalink
I fail to see why that is an "unneeded name," given the length of the ramp. I've seen lots of named segments of that nature out here, and have been doing it that way all along, since it helps to provide guidance to drivers making their way to the freeway.
Because it will automatically take the name of the next named ramp. They have the same name, so there's no need* to name the first one as it'll already give the second one's name as the instruction. It makes zero difference* client-side, so there's no reason* to have the extraneous name taking up space in the Waze database. It's just streamlining.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:12 pm
CBenson wrote:SuperDave1426 wrote:Not to mention that the minute you do that, you create a roundabout with non-sequential segment IDs, and I've read that can cause problems with navigation through a roundabout. The Toolbox will specifically flag such a roundabout as one which could cause potential problems (and if you use the "redo roundabout" tool, it will (quite properly, IMO) remove the extra node you just added because there's not actually a road attached to it).
So recreate the roundabout with the extra node.
I still don't really understand the point of mapping roundabouts with only two segments.
But I have seen them give similar problems as any two segments that are connected to the same two nodes. I've had more issues with two segment roundabouts than with non-sequential segment ID roundabouts.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:15 pm
dbraughlr wrote:sketch wrote:So, this check should probably be adjusted to alert for any segment under [X] m long
... for any drivable segment except a terminal (dead-end) segment under [X] m long ...
dbraughlr wrote:sketch wrote:Remember that a lot of the checks in Validator are not necessarily wrong, they're just things that might need a look.
I'll reiterate the point I made, that many of these are just checks. Not everything needs action.
In practice, you are mistaken. There are many editors that expect the Validator to give their area a clean bill of health. Come to chat and talk to them. Editors have been deleting the loops flagged with "Same endpoints drivable segments" error. I recommended installing the updated Validator instead.
Any arbitrary "rules" like this should be turned off by default, clearly marked as informational when turned on, and marked with green or some color never used for errors.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:38 pm
CBenson wrote:A couple of thoughts.
1) I didn't say they weren't roundabounts, just that they weren't worth mapping.
2) Although yielding to the traffic is a consideration, its not a universal quality of traffic circles. There are certainly urban signaled circles where "at the roundabout take the second exit" is a useful instruction, but the traffic in the circle doesn't have any right-of-way over the traffic entering the circle as the entries are all signaled.
CBenson wrote:SuperDave1426 wrote:One question, though, and I didn't see an answer to this the last time we were discussing it: You had indicated that in the past you've seen that to be the case. Is it, in fact, still the case now? Have you seen any recent occurrences of whatever the problem behavior is that you've seen? It could very well be that it's already been fixed.
I have not seen recent occurrences, so roundabouts may now be treated differently with regard to this issue.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:29 pm
CBenson wrote:SuperDave1426 wrote:Then can I make the request that when you're arguing against two-road roundabouts that you drop that as a reason? If it's no longer happening, then it seems to me that it's no longer a valid reason to use in a "do it or not" type of consideration. But maybe that's just me.
Sure you can make the request. But if I understand correctly, the validator is simply applying the same rules regarding two segments connecting the same two junctions that is applied to any segments to roundabout segments.
I do believe that there are currently problems when the same two segments connect the same two junctions. I guess I'd like to see more evidence that roundabout segments are somehow treated differently with regard to these problems.