gettingthere wrote:

R4CLucky14 wrote:Major rivers offer reference points that sometimes roads don't. I'm considering, after fixing up roads, going to add those in. It's a nice feature, but not a priority.

I understand, they can be helpful.

I guess I don't understand why they can't be added in WME. I see landmark types of sea/lake/levee, and river/stream. These don't work?

Edit - ok, I understand - Country Manager's don't have edit rights near water boundaries since Waze does not have the boundaries defined correctly. This also impacts editing the streets near the water boundaries so it needs to get corrected in any case.

At the Palo Alto Meet Up, Waze mentioned that they can correct these boundaries if requested to. Sounds like a request is in order...

Really, I don't see why Waze can't put the boundaries out in the water a bit so they don't have to match up exactly with the coastline. Why not put them apx. 1km / 1 mile, etc out?

They really just need to adopt a layer system. Layer each country + coastal waters (15 miles until it becomes International Waters), and use that for editing rights.

bangus236 wrote:that's odd. i posted here yesterday but i cant find it.
anyway, when intersections are made, wouldn't it be easier if the default is set to "allow all connections" instead of having to click the red arrows to turn them to green?

Not if reverse connectivity is not fixed

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:

james_8970 wrote:If there was any way that we could have a default city that would automatically assign the city name to a road we create or edit that would be wonderful. It gets annoying having to enter the city name every time you edit an existing road or create a new one.

This admittedly annoying step is in place specifically to try to prevent "automatic" spread/sprawl of cities. Too many map editors already just leave it anyway. If the system were to "pick" a city or state (or country, think world server!) automatically, how often would it actually be correct? No, I think this needs to stay in place.

What does need to be fixed is the blanking out of country (and state) when selecting multiple newly drawn segments. That doesn't make sense and Waze has said they would fix it, months ago.

Those city-polygons are made from the streets, right? If so, could they not be reversed? Remove the city field, and draw cities on the city layer? All segments within a city would have that field filled. All segments outside a city would have a "No City" check. . .

If that's possible from a design point of view, then is there any logical reason not to do it that way?

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Perhaps. But not likely high on their list. And who spends time to collect city polygon boundaries for every city in the world? But I think the city layer is a just a bunch of pretty graphic layer with alpha blending, not actual mathematically defined polygons.

True. But if they converted that "pretty graphic layer" to a polygon, and that polygon defined the city for everything inside it, and removed the city field, then the result would be no un-intended expansion of a city, no unnecessary junctions at city changes, and no work to define the polygons unless an editor wanted to get it more accurate.

But if this did occur, it'd be years from now at this rate. . .

top_gun_de wrote:As of today, the street direction "no entrance" is gone, I see only "two way", "one-way" (2x) and "unknown". How can I set a street to "no entrance" to prevent routing through the street?

Best regards,

Detlev

No Entrance never stopped routing. It only made the road unknown. Delete the street if it's unroutable. Why have a unroutable street to begin with? Waze is about routing vehicles from A to B...

CBenson wrote:

bgodette wrote:

CBenson wrote:Why have unroutable street types if your not going to use them?

They exist because they were in the TIGER data set, same thing for all the different Landmark types. Far easier and safer to import everything you can, than to throw out something that might be important because it was mislabeled in the data you're importing.

Sure. I'm assuming its not just TIGER data, but an approximation of other map data sorces as well. So the waze developers saw fit to include this data in the waze database. Its not like they included all the data in the TIGER database. It seems that simply saying non-routeable segments are not useful and deleting them is contrary to some initial waze decision. I'm willing to do this if the data are causing problems. But I'm not going to second guess the developers decision just because I don't see how the data fit into the mission of waze.

Well, if they want me to keep useless segments, they better tell me! I'm trying to fight map clutter, and these clutter the map.

If they have a mission to use these, they should do what they do worst and communicate...

Suik wrote:

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:

Suik wrote:IMHO simple explanation, why we need "no entrance" roads. For temporary road closures, let's say, guys? Or are we going to handle these temporary road closures all the time via disconnecting the road and then connecting back?

No Entrance never stopped routing to begin with so nothing has changed. Just the label.

fully understand Alan, but it can be saved for future (how long? ) as possible street type. I know that nowadays "no entrance" means basically nothing.

No reason to save it IMHO.

As far as temporary construction, simply disconnect it, and change the level to -5. For longer-term construction, it is probably best to delete it, as road patterns will probably be different after long-term construction. That's my opinion, at least.

In my experimentation... it doesn't, you have to contact support. There doesn't appear to be a process to prune orphaned city names, they just continue to display at their last location before all the roads were removed from it.

FrisbeeDog wrote:Am I the only one who thinks it was much easier to draw smooth roads in old Cartouche? The squares in the new map editor are terrible. The circles and the dragging method were much smoother in the old version.

Also, with the arrows to set allowed turns it is often impossible to fix the geometry near the junction. I keep clicking the arrow instead of grabbing a nose even when I zoomed fairly far in.

Just like in the first version of papyrus... you can press the "A" key to make the editor make them unclickable. For more shortcuts use "?" (not all are listed, see wiki for more).

vectorspace wrote:I've noticed what may or may not be bugs in the new editor and creating nodes.

(1) Highlighting two crossing roads should show the + sign that you can click on to create a junction. That doesn't always seem to work. I cannot seem to find out why that happens. I've checked the types of roads and it seems this should work. Sometimes if I save the changes and edit something else and come back, then it work. Sometimes I end up going into the old editor and just adding a junction.

This used to happen a lot more during beta. Two newly created roads seems to cause it more often. One theory is it might have something to do with new segments not having any details yet. The workaround you mentioned was my way around it also. Most of the time save, then permalink

vectorspace wrote:(2) When trying to get rid of stray junctions, one can highlight two adjacent segments, which brings up a "bridge" icon one can click on. This replaces the junction with a node. Very nice. Sometimes this bridge does not show up. It seems that it does not show up when the two segments are of sufficiently different types or the names of the two roads to not match (usually a spelling error or missing NW/SW/NE/SE, etc.). I understand why the bridge would not show up and look for the issue. Perhaps this can be better documented in the wiki.

I think you just described it weird, but the bridging function, joins any like segments removing them from the common junction. And if all segments are joined then the junction is automatically removed. So you want to make sure that segments that should join, are exactly the same (name, city, type, directionality) before using the bridging function.

vectorspace wrote:(3) When dragging the end of one road to another road it should automatically create a junction. Sometimes this does not work. I can move the end of one road all over the place and it will not connect to the other road. Saving sometimes fixes this. Sometimes I have to detach all the roads and move them aside, then come back and reattach them. Usually this works, but not all the time. There must be some kind of bug in this feature. One solution I've used as a work around is to pull the road past the other road I want to connect, then highlight them both creating the "+" to make a node. Then I highlight and delete the part of the road going beyond the junction.

Most likely you are trying to join a end that already had a node associated with it. Trying dragging the end away, drop it (which dissociates it from any junctions), and then try to drag it to the segment. End segments when they have a node have a circle, but without they have the square. This could work a little better, but at least you have a workaround