PesachZ wrote:you can only connect to existing junction nodes.

I really wish they would tie this to the lock level of the junction... at least tie it to the level of the lowest segment attached to the junction.

As it stands now, an L1 can attach a segment to a freeway junction, and now with this new logic, actually enable the turns onto the freeway.

At least when we could not change the TRs, the new attachment had no impact on routing since the turns were disabled.

PesachZ wrote:

taco909 wrote:

PesachZ wrote:you can only connect to existing junction nodes.

I really wish they would tie this to the lock level of the junction... at least tie it to the level of the lowest segment attached to the junction.

As it stands now, an L1 can attach a segment to a freeway junction, and now with this new logic, actually enable the turns onto the freeway.

At least when we could not change the TRs, the new attachment had no impact on routing since the turns were disabled.

While this is true, even they did that it would have no effect for routing those user on the freeway. Wazers on the freeway would NOT be given a route onto the new R1 segment. This is no different than drawing a new R1 Fwy. Can you conceive of situations where this will actually provide worse fwy routing?
This can only affect routing for wazers starting on unlocked roads.

It would not route people off of the freeway, but it would route people onto the freeway, and as stubborn as the routing server sometimes is in getting you back on-route when there is a deviation, it may not recalculate to provide proper directions.

Drawing a new R1 freeway would not attempt to route unless the editor were to send it all the way to some destination, which would be extremely rare, but I have encountered many times that a junction is "broken" by a new editor because they have disconnected a street or PLR and reconnected it at a ramp junction.
But "freeway" was just given as an extreme example. The same is true of MH and mH junctions.
A VERY common problem that I encounter is where a segment ends just shy of a street, but is blocked by a fence or wall that is not apparent in the aerials.
Most times, the new editor drags the end over to the Pri/mH and is not able to attach it, we pick it up on Validator and fix it... but if that segment is adjacent to an intersection, it can then be attached to the junction. Now, with the new TR logic, those departing turns can be enabled. This COULD potentially misroute someone by quite some distance (along the same lines as the private installation routing debate where a visitor may be routed a mile or more to a resident-only gate).

IMHO, any junction should have segment additions/disconnection/deletion locked to, at the very least, the level of the lowest attached segment or 2, and preferably, additions locked to the lowest level (or 2) and deletions/disconnections locked to the highest level. Presntly, disconnections are locked to the higher level, though the segment may be completely deleted at the lower level.

An R1 can not attach a new segment to a mH, why should they have the ability to attach one to a junction joining a mH to a MH? They need an unlock to properly enable the turns anyways.
Likewise, they can not disconnect an R1 segment from a mH, why should they have the ability to completely delete that segment (which leaves an orphan junction on the mH that they can not clean up)


With respect to the new TR logic, I like it. I think it is a good idea and will save some calls for unlocks in chat, but the segment attachment issue has bugged me from day-1, and the addition of the new logic creates the potential for routing problems.

BellHouse wrote:It seems, in the last days there was a WME update? Now on segments bearing house numbers the street name cannot be deleted any more, and it's possible to draw area places again (as in beta WME). Any release notes?

Is this something new on ROW?
On the NA server I have never been able to delete street names on segments bearing house numbers.
The recent change in behaviour is before, there would be a "save" error. Now, WME prevents the removal in the first place.

iainhouse wrote:

dickdanrad wrote:I'm unable to edi the map despite it being in my driving area.

"You cannot edit this segment. You may only edit segments in your driving area. " is wrong - I drive it daily - any idea why?

Minor B roads around my home can edit. More major routes (A roads) I can't

Just to clarify - because I advised that this issue be reported when we were chatting - the problem is an incorrect error message.

In this case, the user is a new, L1 editor. The segments in question were auto-locked to 4 but well within his area. He should have been getting an error indicating the segments were locked above his level - not that they were outside his driving area.

This glitch seems to hit under certain situations.
Selecting multiple segments, one of which has a closure on it, will result in the same message (even if you are able to edit the closure)
It may be in this case that WME is getting confused on the (Auto)

Do the elevations match?
When a segment is first drawn, and frequently freshly edited, it will appear at elevation "nul"
I've encountered this bug and it's always been due to one of the segments being at elevation nul or different from the other (whether intentionally or in error).

Remember, the "bridge" function also increases elevation by 1, so bridging a segment may prevent the creation of an intersection with another using the tool.

I've noticed that the dropoff point of area places will reset back to the default location if I don't save the area place prior to setting the dropoff point.

REQUEST: can we have both Imperial AND Metric units displayed at the same time? There's plenty of room for both.

Or at least put the other unit as a tooltip for lengths and speeds.

nzahn1 wrote:

AndyPoms wrote:@nzahn1 That's not what I'm showing for a ferry... Granted this one has "Toll" set on it, as well as TBRs & RTCs, but I'm not seeing any red...

Tried on two different computers (Win7 & iOS; Chrome; no extensions). All ferry roads are red.

Fredo-p wrote:I just made two ferry segments.

My experiments concur with that display.

There are two different road types: existing Ferry roads (14) and newly drawn Ferry roads (15).
I smell a bug...

Had Waze introduced VECTOR maps instead of bitmap tiles, then theming the colours would have been trivial. Maybe they can get some tips from Google devs...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

PesachZ wrote:This has been fixed (at least in NA) and all ferries are now showing the blue dots. Can you confirm this is fixed in ROW as well?

Yup, new (named) Ferry segments show as blue dots, roadType = 15.
Existing Ferry segments also show as blue dots, roadType = 15.

Routing across Ferry is still broken, as demonstrated by this route. Devs are looking in to it.