[Script] WME Validator v2020.11.1 (PLACES BETA)

[dbraughlr]

If someone has bothered to install add-ons, he probably knows about red roads. But no problem, just make the feature r3 and up.

As for what the default city is, it would be nice to have it set to the city of its attachment point(s) rather than None. If the cities are different or incomplete, then the City field cannot be automatically completed.

I've net seen an explanation for why political boundaries aren't stored in a single database somewhere.
We really shouldn't have to set the city name at all. There would be no smudges. It truly would save a lot of work.

[dbraughlr]

There is no reason whatsoever to use a bowtie where U turns are allowed.

Occasionally only one U-turn is permitted.

[Dev0]

I simply love this tool.. Very helpful and helped me solve a lot of map problems Thanks

[ditchi56]

When I try, I get a message: "Sorry, You cannot use WME Validator over here. Please check the forum thread for more information."

Well, perhaps the information about which countries it is available in is in this thread, but I haven't spotted it. Could the first post could be edited to give a list please?

[ditchi56]

Here's another example. What we have here is a road with a locked gate in the middle, to which only the residents have a key. Each end of the road is accessible to everybody, but only key holders can pass through.

If the central section isn't on the map, and any of the residents start driving through the gate with Waze running, Map Problems will result. OK, they can be deleted, but better to avoid them in the first place - besides an editor not knowing the situation might react to the Map Problem by creating an unrestricted link.

With the central section in but restricted, non-residents never get routed along the road past the gate. Neither do residents, which isn't ideal, but at least they know the area and can make their own decision to ignore the Waze route when they want.

So in my view, Validator should be detecting that the restrictions are different each side of the node, and not flagging it for removal.

[ditchi56]

On this occasion, the "private road" penalty is not (or has not been at some time in the past) sufficient to stop through routing - passing through the gate saves a good ten minutes on some journeys, which is of course why the residents are so keen to keep their gate locked.

[ditchi56]

OK, here here is yet another example of where Validator is incorrectly saying "remove a node" because it isn't recognising restrictions. The northern part of Church St is a pedestrian precinct during the day only. Time restriction closes it 10:00-16:30. There is no junction at the change, just a gate which is closed 10:00-16:30, open at other times.

Now as it happens, Church St also goes 1-way at this point, so Validator wasn't complaining. But I've temporarily made it 2-way, and immediately Validator says get rid of the node, which would incorrectly apply the time restriction to the whole road.

[ditchi56]

Suggestion: could it warn of

1) landmark too small to show on app? At least petrol (gas) station landmarks if not other types?

2) roundabouts too small to show on app?

[ditchi56]

I think the detection of "overlapping segments at node x" is fantastic.

Can you extend it to pick up cases like these, where the road loops round and ends on itself (a hangover from take-on from the base map)? https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lat=51.12759&lon=-0.75347&env=row&layers=997&segments=121553822,121553824 Waze doesn't navigate them properly at all, not surprisingly since the apparent junction isn't really a junction on the map.

[ditchi56]

Validator reports up to 300 segments per issue to save memory. So if you pan around the map for some time and there are more than 300 segments with 'Soft turns' for instance, Validator will stop highlighting soft turns, but will continue to highlight other issues.

Would it be possible to have a function in Validator settings to control the maximum number of items reported? My poor old computer runs out of memory for handling the report,which takes ages to load, and even to scroll a page. I think I'm asking for a limit on the total number of items reported, rather than a limit on items for a particular issue.