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

Discussion for the unofficial, community-developed addons, extensions and scripts built for the Waze Map Editor.

The official index of these tools is the Community Plugins, Extensions and Tools wiki page.

Moderators: Unholy, bextein, Glodenox, JustinS83

Forum rules
Discussion for the unofficial, community-developed addons, extensions and scripts built for the Waze Map Editor.

DO NOT START a new thread unless it is about a new idea. Keep discussion of existing tools within the main thread for that tool.

The official index of these tools is the Community Plugins, Extensions and Tools wiki page.

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.5.10 (BETA) / 03.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:42 pm

berestovskyy wrote:03.02.2014 v0.5.10:
- NEW for ALL 'Too short segment' (less than 2m long)


Just a "point of curiosity" question, but how does a segment less than 2 meters in length (which is a bit over 6 feet) cause a problem? I agree, it's kinda pointless to put in a segment that's that short, but I'm wondering why there's a check for it (not opposed; just curious).


You might need to update Validator, since it was disabled few days ago:
22.01.2014 v0.5.2:
- UPD 'Same endpoints drivable segments': roundabouts are temporarily excluded


That's a relief. :-) When he posted that, I was afraid that you'd turned it back on for some reason. :D
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.5.9 (BETA) / 02.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:53 pm

sketch wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:
berestovskyy wrote:If this one-way Ramp has a turn enabled to another one-way Ramp. Here is an example: permalink

I fail to see why that is an "unneeded name," given the length of the ramp. I've seen lots of named segments of that nature out here, and have been doing it that way all along, since it helps to provide guidance to drivers making their way to the freeway.

Because it will automatically take the name of the next named ramp. They have the same name, so there's no need* to name the first one as it'll already give the second one's name as the instruction. It makes zero difference* client-side, so there's no reason* to have the extraneous name taking up space in the Waze database. It's just streamlining.


Ok, I see what you're saying there.

Although there are still times where naming individual segments apply (as you mentioned further in your message), so it seems that a check of that type is probably still not a good idea. Both in the case that we're talking about and which you acknowledge, but also times when the name changes to provide directional information.

I.E., an offramp that splits; the split segments have information about what they're taking you to beyond simply the road name that they're connecting you to.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.5.9 (BETA) / 02.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:12 pm

CBenson wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:Not to mention that the minute you do that, you create a roundabout with non-sequential segment IDs, and I've read that can cause problems with navigation through a roundabout. The Toolbox will specifically flag such a roundabout as one which could cause potential problems (and if you use the "redo roundabout" tool, it will (quite properly, IMO) remove the extra node you just added because there's not actually a road attached to it).


So recreate the roundabout with the extra node.


How exactly do you do that, given that the "add roundabout" tool only adds nodes for each road coming into it?

I suppose it could be managed by temporarily creating a third road leading into it and then deleting that road once the roundabout is created, but to me that falls back into what kentsmith9 was saying about being more unnecessary work.

I still don't really understand the point of mapping roundabouts with only two segments.


Since when is a roundabout about how many roads enter it? A roundabout is a big honkin' (or in some cases, a small honkin' :-)) circular road, running one way, around something in the middle of it. Other roads attach to it and those coming from the entering roads are required to yield to the traffic already in the roundabout.

In U.S. dictionaries the terms "roundabout", "traffic circle" and "rotary" are synonyms. There's no requirement that there be more than two roads attached.

But I have seen them give similar problems as any two segments that are connected to the same two nodes. I've had more issues with two segment roundabouts than with non-sequential segment ID roundabouts.


I'll take you at your word for it, though I haven't seen any such. If such is the case, then it seems to me that those of you with access to Waze staff need to encourage them to fix that, since that's clearly a bug that needs fixing.

One question, though, and I didn't see an answer to this the last time we were discussing it: You had indicated that in the past you've seen that to be the case. Is it, in fact, still the case now? Have you seen any recent occurrences of whatever the problem behavior is that you've seen? It could very well be that it's already been fixed.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: minimum segment length of terminal segments

Postby SuperDave1426 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:15 pm

dbraughlr wrote:
sketch wrote:So, this check should probably be adjusted to alert for any segment under [X] m long


... for any drivable segment except a terminal (dead-end) segment under [X] m long ...


+1 :-)

dbraughlr wrote:
sketch wrote:Remember that a lot of the checks in Validator are not necessarily wrong, they're just things that might need a look.
...
I'll reiterate the point I made, that many of these are just checks. Not everything needs action.


In practice, you are mistaken. There are many editors that expect the Validator to give their area a clean bill of health. Come to chat and talk to them. Editors have been deleting the loops flagged with "Same endpoints drivable segments" error. I recommended installing the updated Validator instead.

Any arbitrary "rules" like this should be turned off by default, clearly marked as informational when turned on, and marked with green or some color never used for errors.


[ img ]
Last edited by SuperDave1426 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.5.9 (BETA) / 02.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:38 pm

CBenson wrote:A couple of thoughts.
1) I didn't say they weren't roundabounts, just that they weren't worth mapping.

Perhaps not to you. :-)

2) Although yielding to the traffic is a consideration, its not a universal quality of traffic circles. There are certainly urban signaled circles where "at the roundabout take the second exit" is a useful instruction, but the traffic in the circle doesn't have any right-of-way over the traffic entering the circle as the entries are all signaled.

Actually, one of the defining characteristics of the modern roundabout is that traffic entering yields to traffic already in the circle unless otherwise marked (at least, within the USA; obviously, I can't speak regarding other countries). (By "otherwise marked," I mean that there will be signs in the circle directing traffic to yield to the entering traffic.) A "modern roundabout" is a type of looping junction in which road traffic travels in one direction around a central island and priority is given to the circulating flow. Signs usually direct traffic entering the circle to slow and to yield the right of way. See this document from the Federal Highway Administration for further information.

I even found the following image that kind-of illustrates the whole roundabout thing:

[ img ]

While it's true that US dictionaries use "roundabout" and "traffic circle" as synonyms, in technical terms, they're different.

----------------------
Common distinctions between modern roundabouts and older rotary type intersections:

Typically, modern roundabouts are:
  • smaller than rotaries
  • designed for slower entry, circulating, and exit speeds
  • always following a “yield-at-entry” traffic control principle
  • designed with a raised splitter island to slow and deflect traffic prior to entry
  • designed to facilitate safer pedestrian crossings
  • designed to follow a same lane entry/lane exit principle at multilane roundabouts (NO LANE CHANGES in the circulatory roadway)

Signalized Traffic Circles are NOT Roundabouts. As an example, Dupont Circle in Washington DC is not a roundabout, it's a Traffic Circle with signals (I.E. a Signalized Traffic Circle).
(Source)
-------------------------
As with anything in life, there are bound to be exceptions to the above - however, they're just that: Exceptions, not the rule.

I realize that this is possibly going beyond the scope of what needs to be considered from a Waze "mapping it" standpoint, but I feel that the point needs to be made - after all, we're talking about mapping roundabouts and whether or not the Validator should be annoying us with non-warning about a two-entering road roundabout. :D (Also, I felt that the distinction between the two should be pointed out, even if the map software doesn't give us a way to map them differently.)

I'm sure there are those who might say that there's no difference from a mapping standpoint since we only have a "Add Roundabout" function within the WME. I expect you're probably one of them. ;) However, if a distinction needed to be made, I'm thinking that for those editors who have the Toolbox installed, the "Change roundabout to standard road" (which would still be a one-way circular road) tool could help with that and thus a signalized traffic circle could be represented that way. I'm not advocating this; just suggesting it as a possibility if it were felt important enough to treat them differently in the map.

CBenson wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:One question, though, and I didn't see an answer to this the last time we were discussing it: You had indicated that in the past you've seen that to be the case. Is it, in fact, still the case now? Have you seen any recent occurrences of whatever the problem behavior is that you've seen? It could very well be that it's already been fixed.

I have not seen recent occurrences, so roundabouts may now be treated differently with regard to this issue.

Then can I make the request that when you're arguing against two-road roundabouts that you drop that as a reason? If it's no longer happening, then it seems to me that it's no longer a valid reason to use in a "do it or not" type of consideration. But maybe that's just me. :D
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.5.9 (BETA) / 02.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:29 pm

CBenson wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:Then can I make the request that when you're arguing against two-road roundabouts that you drop that as a reason? If it's no longer happening, then it seems to me that it's no longer a valid reason to use in a "do it or not" type of consideration. But maybe that's just me. :D

Sure you can make the request. But if I understand correctly, the validator is simply applying the same rules regarding two segments connecting the same two junctions that is applied to any segments to roundabout segments.

Actually, no it's not doing that anymore. That check was disabled (at least in the US) a couple of versions ago.

I do believe that there are currently problems when the same two segments connect the same two junctions. I guess I'd like to see more evidence that roundabout segments are somehow treated differently with regard to these problems.


Time will tell. :-)
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:31 pm

A feature request of my own. :-)

Is there any chance that a check can be added to highlight a road with a blank elevation? I've been running into two situations:

1) As I'm editing, I'm discovering blank elevations that I'm having to set as ground and then save, when then shows "ground" the next time I select those roads. This then results in my checking a lot of extra roads nearby that I'm not otherwise planning to edit to see if they've got the blank elevation as well. If the Validator highlighted empty elevations, then I'd be able to simply look around and know which ones need to be fixed.

2) I'll edit a road that already has a elevation of ground, but after I've made my edit(s) (none of which involve elevation), when I select the road again it will now be blank instead of "ground." This does not happen all the time - only for some roads. As a result, I'm wasting a lot of time editing a road and then having to select it again after saving to make sure the elevation is still right. If it is, then I move on and if not, then I change it back to ground and resave. If the Validator highlighted empty elevations, then I could eliminate the need to click on something I just finished editing simply to ensure that it's still set to "ground" and will only have to do it if it lights up after I save. (I sometimes have dead-end U-Turns that were green where the save at hard restricted didn't "stick" for some reason and reverted back to green after the save - since the highlighter lights up those roads, know I need to go back and do it again without having to waste time reselecting every dead-end I edit just to be sure the restriction is in place.)

So, any chance this check can be added? Maybe make it a selectable option so that those who don't care won't be pestered by them? :-)
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:35 pm

BellHouse wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:Is there any chance that a check can be added to highlight a road with a blank elevation?

Blank elevations do not exist in the database, they are just sometimes displayed in WME by a long standing bug that's masked by the Junction Node Fixer Script (JNF). It happens after saves and the features are reloaded before the changes have fully propagated. Causing the features to reload (reload page, permalink, pan/zoom far enough, WME Toolbox key) clears it.

Ok, thanks for the info. Question: How does that account for times when I've gone into an area, and even before editing anything I've got empty elevation segments showing? I've tried zooming, moving around, etc., and it still shows empty instead of "ground."

By "masked by the JNF," do you mean that when I've selected a segment that was showing ground but then ended up as empty, that the JNF was masking the out-of-range elevation and thus it was showing as "ground" even though it wasn't actually that way in the database? And that for an apparently short time after I saved an edit it was showing as empty again until the JNF catches up to it? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're describing above.

If that's the case, then maybe the validator could be looking for things that are out of range and either give you a one-button fix or highlight them so that they can be looked into? The JNF may be making it so that out-of-range looks like "ground" in the editor (if I'm understanding you correctly), but that doesn't change the fact that the value is wrong in the database under those conditions....
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:38 pm

berestovskyy wrote:I couldn't find any blank elevation around, but I found few segments with out of range elevation (i.e. level 20) and WME displays it as a blank. Here is an example: permalink


Based on my understanding of what BellHouse said in his post, that's probably what I've been running into.

That being the case, is there a way that you can have the Validator check for things like that or, better yet, give us a way to quickly fix them when we encounter them? :-)
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.7.0 (BETA) / 19.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:49 pm

berestovskyy wrote:19.02.2014 v0.7.0:
- DISABLED for US 'Two-way Ramp segment'

Can you make this an option that can be turned on/off, so that those of us who live in areas where two-way ramp segments simply don't happen won't miss one that gets created by mistake? :-)
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 283 times

PreviousNext

Return to Addons, Extensions, and Scripts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Mythdraug