vitj wrote:Is it possible change access for function Suppress unneeded geometry from [AM/CM/L5] to [CM/L5]?
Couple of AM was used this in town and map is destroyed. We are using many micro breaks at the crossroads, which are now out. We thing, that this feature is very dangerous and must be more under controll.

Olestas wrote:Just make micro brakes corners a little longer.

The answer for an overzealous tool is not "edit differently". The answer is "fix the tool".

doctorkb wrote: I'm going to make it a little easier for you -- from what I understand, they only need to be longer than 9m to allow a u-turn. It used to be 15m, but was apparently reduced to 9m first on the RoW server, and now we're seeing it on NA.

Can you verify this?

It would mean you don't need to hack the map like this (hey, has anyone noticed that the segments this seems to cause a problem with are map hacks?) and you don't need to worry about simplification of the segment.

It's still 15m here as of a few weeks ago.

doctorkb wrote:It won't solve the "increase segment length to over X metres to allow u-turns" hack problem.

It's not really a "hack" if we are editing the map to comport with a staff-created U turn prevention mechanism. It's just "editing".

----------
As for whether to touch the first geometry handle: I don't think it's wise to leave these nodes alone entirely. Past a certain distance from the node, a geometry handle that elicits any meaningful change in geometry will not be "simplified" because it will not be close enough to "straight". I can't tell you what this distance is, exactly, partially because I don't know how OpenLayers works. But think about it: if the first geo handle is 5 meters or further from the node, there to change the angle from 40 to 90 degrees, it's not going to be anywhere near "straight" and consequently won't be removed by a reasonable OpenLayers simplify factor.

So – increasing that distance will be perfectly sufficient, and won't require extra coding, just a tweak. I think 5 meters should be fine.

It is simply poor editing to introduce, on purpose, a 46 degree angle where it would otherwise be 44 degrees. Those are the kinds of things that this might alter. When you're that close to the threshold, either (1) that junction already needed someone to come along and edit it properly, or (2) that junction wasn't edited properly.

Thortok2000 wrote: I'll agree with you on the 21 to 47 thing after seeing it in action, but as far as 44 to 46, just because we 'should never' doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Especially in cases where editors are trying NOT to 'hack' the map and to instead map the road accurately...in fact, you're much more likely to find that in editors that over-geometrize their segments. (Yes I just made that word up.)

It would be good to examine the angles of each and every intersection manually, but especially on the case that the change is from 44 to 46, it would be very hard for an editor to notice such a change occurring. Especially on a screen-wide tool. Unless there's a validator setting for finding intersections that have angles of intersection within 40-50 degree range so that they can be double-checked manually and 'hacked' to no longer be within that range.

In short, I still think the 44 to 46 situation should be accounted for in some way.

If you're "map[ping] the road accurately" and it ends up at 44 or 46 degrees... then it's just as likely some editor will come along and change the geometry very slightly and throw it off anyway. And if you're "map[ping] the road accurately" then you must not care what the particular instruction is, so you wouldn't care if it changed from one to the other.

Simply put, if you're "map[ping] the road accurately" at the expense of careful consideration of turn instructions, you're mapping the road incorrectly. The first thing an editor should consider when mapping an intersection is whether or not that intersection will give coherent and comprehensible turn instructions. If you're doing that, and carefully, you won't be leaving any angles at 44 or 46 degrees.

Plus, that's against the wiki.

bz2012 wrote:+1

Not working: keyboard shortcuts editor

I think that's a WME problem, not a Toolbox problem.

Nomenclator1677 wrote:I have some problems right now :

I can't use toolbox as you could see in those posts (where I made a mistake believing it was Validator!

viewtopic.php?f=819&t=76488&start=1180#p910462

Indeed, the Segment List is not working. It can be moved and resized, but it cannot be closed, and it does not show any segments.

I do agree vis-à-vis restricting the segment list. But I do hope we can get it back up and running. It's very useful.

PesachZ wrote:Perhaps instead is restricting it, is extremely useful, you could limit how many segments max are selected based on rank & role of editor.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

Or, perhaps the list itself could be visible to anyone, but the "selection" buttons would only work for higher-rank users.

PesachZ wrote: You could also allow the toolbar to expand to two lines one it's over x number of buttons to shorten the width.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

It already does this, at least in Chrome on a Mac, if the toolbar is wider than the window. Not sure if it's "supported" necessarily, as the background does not similarly continue onto the next line, but the buttons are clickable.

http://i.imgur.com/bSK6E5Ql.png

resmota wrote:

doctorkb wrote:There are already options to customize your toolbar -- click the screwdriver/wrench icon and you can uncheck the tools you want out.

Yeah, that's why I put it here. You can offer the "old way" and the "new way" at the settings, then the bar will never be filled with unused buttons

I don't really like that idea, as I can see myself using both in different situations (i.e., I would use the "old way" to fix lopsided roundabouts that should actually be round, and the "new way" to fix weird-shaped and stacked roundabouts).

Arnoniem wrote:

sketch wrote: I don't really like that idea, as I can see myself using both in different situations (i.e., I would use the "old way" to fix lopsided roundabouts that should actually be round, and the "new way" to fix weird-shaped and stacked roundabouts).

So then you activate both buttons. (I don't think a switch in settings is meant, thought so at first too)


send from my SGS4, using Tapatalk

Well, I think people were actually saying both ideas, one to have a switch for each, and the other to have a switch between the two methods (i.e., one or the other, not both), probably to save space in the toolbar. All I'm saying is I don't like the second idea.