Page 66 of 237

Re: elevation -5 must be used exclusively for railroads

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:02 pm
by dbraughlr


Yes, I quoted from the Railroad section. Of course, -5 is guaranteed to be different from any road it crosses.

Re: unneded nodes

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:17 pm
by dbraughlr
Previously, unneeded nodes were reported for those used for change of elevation and road type also. I haven't re-tested.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.1 (BETA) / 05.02.2014

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:22 pm
by dbraughlr
As for me, I like having a node at the gate. It makes it easier to find the point of access control between the public side and the private side even though there might be no reason to drive up to the gate when it is closed and it makes an "unneeded" node.

Re: WME Validator FAQ

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:26 am
by dbraughlr
Please update the FAQ. In particular, it should not use the word flashing.

Re: same end points is insufficient to find overlays

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:29 pm
by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote:- DISABLED for ALL: 'Same endpoints drivable segments'


I still receive this warning for segments with very distinct paths, often with one being much longer than the other. I think Kent is correct. It matters when the geometry of one segment is completely overlapped by the geometry of other segments. If the segments are several meters apart, then one cannot hide the other.

A segment which has a geometry point at least 5 m from any point along any other segment cannot be hidden by that segment.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.2 (BETA) / 07.02.2014

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:22 pm
by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote:It was enabled back in 0.5.8. At the moment this check does not report roundabouts.

I think it should not report any unless one of the junction angles is 0. I see the error when the junction angles are 90 degrees or more.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.2 (BETA) / 07.02.2014

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:05 am
by dbraughlr
enhket wrote:what would be superb is if validator was able to suggest people to "downgrade" or "upgrade" a road type based in road classification rules and ... speed


This would be quite easy to do. But it is not something that we would want where roads are classified by function not speed.

Perhaps the branch to take here is to make an api for the Validator so that people can customize what validations they want. It should be easy to insert your function CustomValidations() into the array of functions that Validator calls for each segment. People could script and share all the "validations" they like.

Re: parallel paths to the same endpoints

PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:38 pm
by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:it's because of known navigation errors when segments share end-nodes.


Let's consider first a one-way terminal loop.

What is the known navigation error in this situation?
How do you correct it?

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.3 (BETA) / 12.02.2014

PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:49 am
by dbraughlr
robindlc wrote:Do you think it could be possible to link the language of Validator to the one selected in the WME


This could be a problem because as I understand localization, the rules applicable to roads in Spain cite the Spanish wiki and the corresponding validation messages are in Spanish.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.3 (BETA) / 12.02.2014

PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:07 am
by dbraughlr
ituajr wrote:Does this mean errors on nodes outside the user's editable area are not supposed to be flagged?

Please specify that you checked the option "Exclude non-editable segments".