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
Sat May 17, 2014 11:00 am
lg1992 wrote:Now, as landmarks have been changed with places that have categories and sub-categories, I occasionally meet a place with a general category only. It would be nice to have the Validator to mark such places.
If done, I'd like this to be optional. The sub-categories are hardly comprehensive. Many of the places around me only have a general category as none of the sub-categories are appropriate.
Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:17 pm
ditchi56 wrote:1. The two segments must start and end overlapping perfectly. If you have the 2 degrees of separation, you risk Waze generating unwanted "keep left" / "keep right" instructions.
I believe if both road names are the same, you will NOT get any instructions. I believe this has been tested many times and is the subject of this page on turn instructions.
We have reviewed this logic and now Waze is confirming it is accurate.
I think that if both road names are the same, both road types are the same and the road names are the same as the segment before the split
you should not get any instructions. Merely making the names the same shouldn't necessarily eliminate the instructions. (However, for this application the road names and types should be the same for all the segments, no?) My understanding is that overlapping the segments will eliminate the instructions regardless of the road types or names.
Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:12 am
Why is "same endpoints drivable segment" such a big deal? Case in point
, this type of intersection or street layout is common, so why is it a big deal? The only answer to solve this is to create a node, which someone is going to come along later and delete that node, as it's part of "cleanup."
berestovskyy gave the reasons for a bunch of the checks here
. Do we want to have this discussion again in this validator thread or should we take it somewhere else?
Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:55 pm
ctpoole wrote:I agree with TXEMT. If I put in a node I eliminate the same segment warning but in its place I get an unneeded node warning. I tried to question this once before but didn't communicate the problem well.
Could you provide an example permalink? I do not get this behavior from the script.
It's been recommended since I started editing that no two segments should have the same two end points. The guidance has been to split one of them so there are always at least three segments involved in any "loop." If you don't do this several minor problems can occur. First if you start or end a route on a segment that shares its endpoints with another segment, the route line may display on the other segment. Second, routes over such a segment may show using the other segment in URs. Third, if you deviate onto the other segment, it seems that waze does not recalculate the route (admittedly not a significant problem as you end up at the same point anyway).
I believe that somewhere it was explained that these issues are caused by the routing engine identifying routes by junction nodes rather than segments. Thus if you have two segments that connect the same two junction nodes, when the various display engines get the instructions from the routing engine the route is ambiguous. However, I can't remember or find who posted this explanation.
Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:38 pm
So I put a node on Vanda Ter. Validator is not showing an error for having identical adjacent segments (or any other error) to me. Is showing an error for you?
Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:59 pm
Well sure. When I started many were deleting nodes from the end of dead end segments using essentially the same logic. Then waze came in and said the end nodes were necessary. If the node serves a purpose, its not an extra node. Same here, when there have been complaints about routing to loop roads, waze says the solution is to add the "extra" node. If we only mapped primary streets and up, then there would be fewer places we'd have to check for errors. The goal here isn't to have fewer places to check for errors, its to have a map that works the best we can make it work.
Seems to me you can either change the your clean up process to comply with the wiki
or get waze to change the way it handles multiple segments that connect the same two junction nodes.
Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:13 pm
We were changing self connectivity at dead ends before the direct ability to edit them was in the editor and most seem to be continuing to do so now. If the underlying routing issues have not changed, I don't see why the validator check should change. Its no different than warning us about reverse connectivity on one way roads, which can't be directly edited in editor either.
Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:23 pm
PesachZ wrote:Only because pass asked is to stop disallowing the u-turns at dead end nodes, so that they can see if their fix is working, and tweak it to work better anytime, its found to have failed.
Has staff actually clearly stated this, because if so I missed it? I continue to see the same issues I always have with u-turns allowed at dead end nodes. I also see no change with those that are currently disallowed. If turns aren't allowed now and they have removed the ability to directly edit them, then how do they expect the turns to be allowed for testing? There was some talk about them being all allowed with the removal of the ability to edit, but that doesn't appear to be the case to me.
Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:22 am
Well imho there nothing clearly stated in the beta threads about what is really happening with U-turns.
I would also note that I'm incorrect that there there is no ability to dissallow U-turns at a dead ends. Even without JNF, Q seems to dissallow the reverse connection at a dead end. Although, oddly, if they are looking to have the dead end reverse connections enabled, W does not seem to allow the reverse connection.
Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:11 am
Taco909 wrote:Unless we are in the UK, we are not supposed to do this anymore... we've been asked in multiple threads by various global champs and Waze staffers.
Validator needs to ignore the u-turn, and the "Q" function in JNF needs to be changed so it likewise ignores u-turns if they are at a dead-end.
I continue to disagree. The waze stance seems to be that they will* enable all the u-turns at which point they would like them to remain enabled to confirm that the short detour prevention mechanism does solve the problems with enabled u-turns at dead end. First, the whole point then will be to see if problems are due to the u-turn being either enabled or not. As they have taken the ability to see whether the U-turns are enabled away from us in the WME interface, I find it now somewhat critical that this indication remain in Validator so I can troubleshoot and report problems with enabled or disabled dead-end roads. The point is if waze is going have routing affected by a property that can be changed by editors, then we should be able to see that property.
* If "soon" means "we might get around to it someday" then "will" means what?
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.