Unfortunately in New Jersey, we have several different Washington Townships, Springfield Townships, Union Townships, etc, which Waze thinks are all the same city, and now even places pins where it sees disconnected town names. These are not, however, the same towns/cities, and should not be contained within the same polygon.

Postal zip codes - and the official city names they represent are the only way, currently, to ensure the above does not happen. Besides, unless at least one zip code within a township goes by the township name itself (often none, do), nobody really knows the area by the township name anyway, making it less useful in the traffic reports as well.

Perhaps in other parts of the country or world, actual political boundaries mark out areas that actually have unique names within their region/state. New Jersey, however, doesn't work that way...

I don't understand why everyone is so opposed to zip codes? The vast majority of "mailing cities" in New Jersey as defined by zip codes are far better known than the township municipalities they are enclosed in.

Besides, what does everyone do in the states that do not have townships for the parts of each county that are unincorporated?

The yellow segments when a segment is selected mean those segments have a soft turn to the node of the selected segment they touch. The magenta ones show reverse connectivity (RevCons). Red segments, when another segment is selected show U-Turn segments (SelfCons). The last two need to be corrected when seen - the sidebar shows a hint as to what to do if you select a node with a RevCon or SelfCon. Soft turns also need to be corrected, but only if you know for sure which turns are or are not allowed at a given intersection. Further information on Soft Turns, Reverse Connections, and U-Turn Connections can be found in the wikis.

The red highlight segments come up when new roads are added without putting in a city name and street name or checking the corresponding boxes saying it doesn't have a city or name. Maybe there's a script error that put them there and maybe they'll disappear just the same? Freeway offramps are usually kept under level 5 locks to prevent vandalism, so that would be my guess. Anyone here know if something's going on?

Holy smokes. Talk about topic derailment LOL, but enlighting none the less .


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

shawndoc wrote: In many places, the address is on street X, however the main access is provided off of street Y for various reasons.

That reminds me of a time a number of years ago, when I worked in a retail store in a fairly large outdoor mall (it took up most of a rather large block - https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... 7,70693355.)

The Mall Mgmt. wanted to tear down our building, so they had us move to another building. The original store was closer to Showers Dr (about the middle of the block), but faced San Antonio Rd. The new store was slightly closer to El Camino, but quite a bit closer to San Antonio Rd, and faced El Camino.

All my Vendor Reps asked, "So what's your new address going to be?" The answer: Exactly the same. We're just physically moving with no change in address.

Then, about a year after the move, I had to notify all my Vendors that we were getting a new address. So, the natural question was, "So where are you moving NOW?" The answer: We're not physically moving, just getting a new address.

And the funny thing about the address shift was: originally the store (although closer to Showers Drive and facing San Antonio) had an El Camino Address, but after the move and subsequent address change, the store (even though it now faced El Camino and was further from Showers Dr.) had a Showers Drive address!

PhantomSoul wrote:Besides, what does everyone do in the states that do not have townships for the parts of each county that are unincorporated?

In my area they tend to have mailing addresses in the nearest city. So some cities have huge mailing areas but relativiely small city limits.

jasonh300 wrote:

shawndoc wrote:Now that we have a version of Extended Tools for the new editor where the segment list works in Chrome, I'll probably start cleaning up more.

I tried that, but didn't really find it useful for smudge hunting outside of urban areas. It's come in handy finding a few oddball city names though.

I can think of a way it would be more useful, and I'd probably call this a feature request. Because god knows I spend enough time in rural areas doing this. (Trinity County, CA is the very definition of 'rural'.)

And that is this: can WME be changed to allow all segments of all types to be selectable/iterated at zoom level 3? See https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=3&lat ... TTTFTTTTFT As it is today, all segment types are already DISPLAYED at this zoom; you just can't 'select entire streets' or reliably select any given street segment (especially short segments, but some long ones work for some reason). Doing 'select entire street' or selecting segments of arbitrary length of Primary streets, minor highways, etc. all work fine at this level. ... But not for streets or other types.

If we could 'display all segments' at zoom 3 with the add-ons, cleaning up smudges including Portola would go a lot faster; in fact, by definition, four times faster. There may be a resource throttle that prevents this, but it can't hurt to ask, right?

jemay wrote:

jasonh300 wrote:Have you cleared out Portola Valley yet? I specifically ignored that one since it's such a huge project and I don't have much time to dedicate to it.

shawndoc wrote: Oh heck no. Jemay actually I believe handled most of the auto-generated errors about it, but there's still plenty of smudge out there. Every now and then when I've got the time and inclination I'll spend an hour or so at it, but its pretty widespread in the countryside. Now that we have a version of Extended Tools for the new editor where the segment list works in Chrome, I'll probably start cleaning up more.

The auto-generated are only if the city (and in most cases in California - Portola Valley) is inside of another city area. there are TONS MORE (Portola Valley) outside of the city area that are not flagged. And that would take several people several years to find and eliminate manually. Today I have found more with the auto-generated, you just have to go to remote cities/towns...

I proposed this to one of the folks at Waze; one way to nail the URs for Portola would be to temporarily assign all segments inside the actual city of Portola Valley using the extended tools to something else, then tag every single remaining segment with the Waze Automatic error, with a much simpler algorhythm hit. (Does this segment's primary CityID equal 'Portola Valley'? If so, flag it.) Then put Portola Valley, the city, back.

jemay wrote:

skbun wrote: I proposed this to one of the folks at Waze; one way to nail the URs for Portola would be to temporarily assign all segments inside the actual city of Portola Valley using the extended tools to something else, then tag every single remaining segment with the Waze Automatic error, with a much simpler algorhythm hit. (Does this segment's primary CityID equal 'Portola Valley'? If so, flag it.) Then put Portola Valley, the city, back.

NO. If you identified EVERY segment that would be thousands and thousands and thousands of them that would be flagged. As stated in another thread about smudges... the Portola Valley city (outside of the actual city) should be changed to blank!.

It'd be a full solution if it didn't extend into other states - which I know at a minimum it goes into Nevada. There'd still be a state smudge to clean up. But then, I haven't got a good idea of how to deal with that part of it. If they can identify segments based on a lat/long location as well during such a change, we could split which state is assigned.

EDIT: Also, on reflection, I'm misremembering. I assumed that the Waze Automatic flagging was going to do exactly what you said (tag thousands and thousands, etc.) when we first started seeing it appear. What I'd done to the extent of bringing attention to it came back to 'Please do something to fix this'. Full circle...

shawndoc wrote:Thanks Alan, I don't suppose there's an easy way to find these for those of us that aren't programmers?

There is indeed! Install Timbones's highlighter script, at http://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25806 . Current production version is 1.5; there's a beta listed later in the thread you can try.

As an area manager, there are extended settings you can work with, like 'highlighting by city', which is undoubtedly where Alan saw these. (I'd helped code portions that check alt streets and city/country mismatches, so I know how that works).