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 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:02 pm

mikenit wrote:then staff is run the search/replace "service road" by street type. So, the change may be transparent, without need to search, manually edit, and change this type in WME.

Until the URs start coming in because roads that are currently penalized will become routable.

Most "service roads" that I have encountered should be classified as PLR, Private, Walking Trail, Dirt/4x4... or not even mapped. They are generally behind locked gates and never available for the public to drive on.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:06 pm

That is a Chrome memory management problem, Validator just makes it happen more quickly.
Even without Validator running, constantly opening and closing new tabs (like from URO+ links) would cause Chrome to slow to a crawl and crash after working 15 or 20 URs.

On detecting Revcons, it used to, but has not yet been updated to reflect the new changes in WME.
Toolbox does now pick up on them so Validator is redundant, however, Validator does NOT report Revcons identified by Toolbox in the report the way it used to, so they have to be manually searched for.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:31 am

PesachZ wrote:Node A on this segment is being flagged as not needed, even though it is there to show a legitimate turn restriction. The map is actually accurate as is, but the node is being flagged by validator.

This is a 2-way road segment with a barrier in the middle only allowing eastbound through traffic, however it is still a 2 way road on either side of the barrier. Westbound traffic is restricted through this junction.

I have not been getting Validator flags for the "red" highlights since the WME dustup a few weeks ago that "broke" many of the scripts.

I am not getting highlights, or entries in the reports, for no inbound connection, no outbound connection, and of course, revcon. All I've been seeing is extraneuous nodes and "no connection".

For your situation, would it not be appropriate to add a 5m one-way segment?

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:39 pm

PesachZ wrote:Adding an extraneous segment would stop the validator flag, but That adds two nodes instead of one into the database. I think Validator should compare segment properties across a junction, an not deem it unnecessary if it is separating two segments which different properties, (i.e. lock levels, elevation, name, alt name, type), as well as any turn restrictions including allowed u-turns.

I don't think turn restrictions were ever enough to avoid a flag... in fact, it would result in a "red" inbound/outbound connectivity warning flag rather than the "blue" extra node flag.
The connectivity flag could be avoided by the addition of the one-way segment and enabling the u-turn.

I thought that lock level was enough to avoid the extra node flag. Elevation and name are unless something changed on elevation lately.

Edit: Just verified, elevation is enough to avoid the flag. Lock is not.
Last edited by taco909 on Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:01 pm

PesachZ wrote:The red flag would be expected, the blue unneeded flag I'm asking to be fixed so it considers turn restrictions and allowed U-turns
Lock level didn't do it for me here

Make sense, though I don't like leaving the red flag if there is a legitimate way to clear it, if only to prevent a new editor working from a Validator script from opening the restriction (which would then show the blue alert, so he then deletes the node)

That's why I brought up the one-way segment. It avoids both alerts (if the u-turn is set) at the small cost of the time penalty for the one extra junction (and this situation is likely going to be on a small street that we probably don't want to encourage detour route-through anyway).

I've been using the one-way segment to make private driveways on gated communities exit-only. It avoids routing non-residents into the closed gate, once inside, the gates typically open automatically to allow exit, and residents with an opener or code will know they can use the gate and can ignore Waze directing them to the guard shack.

Simply having a turn restriction on a single node should cause any editor to do a double-take. First look (in your case) shows a high ranking editor name, but that could be assumed to be from FC. A more experienced editor would move in closer on SV and notice the lack of UR to confirm... the one-way segment would provide a flag to a less experienced editor that says "This is not a mistake, I did this for a reason"

It would be very helpful if WME were to include a comment field on junction and segment ID database entries. If that were done, then Validator could include the comment in the report page on any alert.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:41 pm

PesachZ wrote:Validator flags are just that, flags of a potential error. The reason validator doesn't actually did anything is because they want human editor eyes to actually confirm that something needs to be fixed first. Looking at the segment, seeing the restriction and the rank lock, should tell any editor to confirm on satellite or street view before changing it, or send the previous editor a pm. An editor who doesn't know to do that on a locked segment, usually doesn't deserve that rank. On a side note we could also leave a [NOTE] UR describing the details, but I felt it wasn't necessary here with the clear GSV images.

I don't disagree with that at all.
If it is locked above L1, then we shouldn't encounter an editor blindly clearing it (and it would not show on the L1's Validator report)

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.1 / 30.08.2014

Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:29 am

jemay wrote:Both are correct... I don't remember reading anything that one way is better over the other, so Validator should be able to handle both.

The resolve this question which is better should be taken to a new thread.

5m One way vs Red Arrow Restriction?
Note: Q? Which has a higher penalty that Waze puts on wrong way on one-way vs through a Red Arrow?

Red arrow restriction, Validator (used to) flag that as "No inward connectivity of driveable road"
With the one-way segment it didn't if the U-turn was set as permitted.

I would imagine that Waze would put a higher penalty on the one-way, but I saw a UR today down in Irvine where it apparently routed against a one-way:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 861&zoom=5

Should have routed right, then right on Monte Vista to Santa Ana to University and back to Irvine.
Unless this was a case where TTS said "left" but the map directions pointed right

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.2 / 01.10.2014

Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:40 am

manoeuvre wrote:[ img ]

Got the same on initial loading. It updated itself after a few minutes.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.2 / 01.10.2014

Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:35 pm

mikenit wrote:When I update and save any segment, the custom ${elevation} /[^0]/ alarm, until I click in segment again, or refresh all. Tested in green custom.

I was getting that on the previous WME from time to time as well.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 1.1.3 / 07.10.2014

Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:04 pm

bart99gt wrote:Referencing this thread: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=112938

Is there any way Validator could check for a segment that is in the opposite direction of the ones surrounding it, perhaps limited to minor highways and above? Bugs like the one in the thread above have very significant routing implications and given the lack of user feedback, tracking these down is tedious and difficult to say the least.

That is a great idea, I wouldn't even want to see it limited to mH and above. It not that common for one-way roads to converge or separate outside of parking lots... but even then, this is something that should be looked at. It's not like the map would be covered with highlights.

Perhaps an option to ignore roads below "xxxxxx" so PLRs and private roads can be ignored manually.
Post a reply