dbcm wrote:

jm6087 wrote: Yes, the Segment Not Protected highlights plugin

You can use the tag ped_boardwalk

Talk with me through discord or hangouts if you can't configure it

Thanks, I have found a different way to accomplish what I need.

dbcm wrote:Hi guys,
as it's possible to route through those segments (i check if the routing is possible, green arrows) and as they are longer than 16 meters (i've added this check now), Magic will complain.

Simplifying these road to a single segment with both directions is what we are doing in Portugal and everything is simple for the editors and for wazers.

pcbman, on your example, the middle segment doesn't have a name, so it's complicated to add extra checks on that scenario

I'm open to suggestions


V172 is out for grabs

I guess I am confused on what you are doing in Portugal to simplify. Can you provide an example to look at?

Both of the examples that pcbman provide is pretty common in the US. Naming the middle segment is situational dependent. If the segment name on either side of the divided highway is different, then we leave the middle segment with no name for inheritance. Based on what I am seeing in pcbman's example, I am guessing that SC does not name in the middle even when both sides are the same so that U-turns are inheriting as well.

tenetienne wrote:Are ground level RR tracks and local streets supposed to get Segments Intersecting highlights also? I've noticed a few and this one here in New Hampshire, U.S. is showing it, so I decided to mention it. Using the latest version of Magic, 172 and that is the only script running. I haven't read through this entire thread, so if this case is normal, I'll just leave it.
Thanks

Yes, they should get intersecting flag. We are supposed to junction them not overlap them.

SeveriorumPatrem wrote:

jm6087 wrote:

tenetienne wrote:Are ground level RR tracks and local streets supposed to get Segments Intersecting highlights also? I've noticed a few and this one here in New Hampshire, U.S. is showing it, so I decided to mention it. Using the latest version of Magic, 172 and that is the only script running. I haven't read through this entire thread, so if this case is normal, I'll just leave it.
Thanks

Yes, they should get intersecting flag. We are supposed to junction them not overlap them.

Last I heard, guidance was to NOT junction railroads with driveable roads any more (a decision I didn't agree with but way above my pay grade). Has that changed back?

I may be thinking about SCR guidance and not national guidance.

SCR Wiki wrote:Railroads mapped in the South Central Region should follow the current standard of editing. All crossings should be connected to drivable segments accordingly. If no crossing exists, elevate the segment accordingly.

As a general rule, I don't see any issues with junctions. In either case, Magic probably should flag if they are not junctioned since Magic is just a guide.

My apologies for thinking it was national guidance.

I have found the same "bug" myself on several occasions.

I have learned to dig deeper if I can't find something obvious

velezss wrote:Hi, I think the script is broken today.
Thanks,

Seems to be working for me so far.

The "geometry node too close" message does not have to be on a junction node. I have seen that message and found the geometry node in the middle of a segment.

SuperDave1426 wrote:Out of curiosity, is this extension still being maintained...?

I haven't heard that dbcm has stopped maintaining the script. He last posted just a couple weeks ago on 3/24 which tells me that he is still around.

I have a question as well. I noticed that there is an option in one of the sections that references an L4+ beta project. Should that be available for all to see?