I'm not sure that's the correct interpretation of what they're talking about in that thread....

Also, one of the examples I provided was for a roundabout. A roundabout only has the same number of nodes as there are roads connected to it. When you've got two roads involved (like in my example), you're only going to have two nodes. The "add roundabout" function in the WME isn't going to create an extra blank junction node. The Toolbox "redo roundabout" function is also does not create an extra node because it's not necessary (no segment is actually connecting back to "the same node").

Edit: One other thing, regarding the "unneeded A/B check" - I reported this in an earlier message, but in case you missed it: It's reporting a case where there is a valid node along a road - when a road crosses from one state to another, we put a node there to separate the section that's in one state from the other. The Wiki also states that's a valid use for a junction node along a road between two segments. Here's an example. This is valid and shouldn't be getting flagged.

CBenson wrote:

SuperDave1426 wrote:Also, one of the examples I provided was for a roundabout. A roundabout only has the same number of nodes as there are roads connected to it. When you've got two roads involved (like in my example), you're only going to have two nodes. The "add roundabout" function in the WME isn't going to create an extra blank junction node. The Toolbox "redo roundabout" function is also does not create an extra node because it's not necessary (no segment is actually connecting back to "the same node").

I've seen routing issue, like routing the wrong way on roundabouts with only two roads that connect to them. I do think they are a problem.

That's a good trick - how can it route you the wrong way through a roundabout, when a roundabout is a group of one-way segments? (I'm not saying that you're making it up, I'm just having a hard time picturing the circumstances that could lead to that happening....)

CBenson wrote:I suppose that's why people submit URs when it happens.

No doubt.

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:

SuperDave1426 wrote:That's a good trick - how can it route you the wrong way through a roundabout, when a roundabout is a group of one-way segments?

Going the wrong way on a 1-way is just another penalty to the Waze routing model. It happens much less often now, but it can happen.

Or really? Wow, that's bizarre. Even with that, you'd think that there'd be less of a penalty for going down the permitted way, and thus that would be the way it would route you.

Strange stuff, this Waze Routing system....

bedo2991 wrote:Just a request, is it possible to make thinks blink slower (or not at all?). I think that I'll get an epilepsy attack one of those days...

I'm not him, but...

berestovskyy wrote:There are too many flashing segments!
Apply more filters. For instance, to concentrate just on warnings and errors, switch on "Exclude notes" filter options.
To completely switch the highlighting off just click the main view title "Validator".

Does that not work (for the turning off part)?

berestovskyy wrote: - enabled "No lock on Freeway" for US
- disabled 'Incorrect Freeway lock level' for US
- fixed 'Unneeded node' (state comparison)

Thank you!

bedo2991 wrote:

SuperDave1426 wrote: Does that not work (for the turning off part)?

It depends on how good is the map you're currently editing. In Italy we have some places that are still untouched since the basemap.

Ah, ok, but I was asking about the request to turn off the blink. His notes said that clicking on the name/logo was supposed to turn off the highlighting altogether (which would turn off the blinking).

Or were you looking for a way to have it highlight segments and leave the color on rather than blinking a few times and then going away? If that's the case, then sorry I misunderstood!

I've been running into that, too. It seems that if you refresh the page (click on permalink probably works, and that will bring you right back where you were editing) then the warning about the city name being wrong seems to go away. (This has been happening when I've added a city name to a street that didn't have one.) Odd....

berestovskyy wrote:- NO MORE TWINKLING: new highlighting system (please report bugs/suggestions)

I read that, and thought, "Hmm, ok, let's see what he did." So I went to Chrome settings and forced a extension update. Went back to the map editor tab, refreshed the screen....

First words out of my mouth: "Good GOD!" Well, you certainly can't miss those markings.

I like it. BIG improvement over the strobe/twinkle. Thanks for that!

Possible bug: Any reason why this segment isn't being flagged as having an unnecessary junction node? Everything is exactly the same on both sides of the node, yet I'm not seeing it flagging it with highlights.

Other things seem to be showing up fine so far.

sketch wrote:

berestovskyy wrote:12.01.2014 v0.4.6:
- updated "Unneeded node A/B" checks
Now it checks if the total length of the adjacent segments is less than 1km

Probably the limit should be adjusted, any suggestions?

Should be 10 km at the minimum. Rural and even suburban freeway segments can be much, much longer than 1 km.

Ok, so color me confused here. Why is length a factor? If there are two segments connected by a junction node (with no other roads coming into that node) and they're exactly the same on both sides, why would you want to leave the node there?

I've always been told that you should get rid of extraneous extra unneeded junction nodes since they can complicate the navigation features. Why should it matter how long the segments are as to whether or not they get highlighted?

I'm failing to see why you would want an unneeded junction node in a road, let alone a bunch of them making short segments out of a longer stretch of road....

edit: By the way, the two-way default was not added to the beta editor. Validator and the Beta updated around the same time, so a few beta users thought it was the beta that did it, not Validator.

To that end: the two-way drawing preference should be disabled by default.

You're talking about having it disabled in the beta editor only, right? (Just want to be sure I understand what you're advocating ).