[Script] WME Validator 1.1.20 / 03.11.2016

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

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 0.6.0 (BETA) / 04.02.2014

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:20 pm

CBenson wrote:Don't know about the Int'l server, but having two one-ways that connect the same two junctions has caused problems in my area. If the origin or destination is on one of the street waze will occasionally start or stop the route on the other. This has been solved by adding a extra junction on one of the segments.

Validator should already be detecting two segments sharing end node locations, regardless of street direction.
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 23598
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 1124 times
Been thanked: 4782 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.0 (BETA) / 04.02.2014

Postby CBenson » Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:34 pm

Don't know about the Int'l server, but having two one-ways that connect the same two junctions has caused problems in my area. If the origin or destination is on one of the street waze will occasionally start or stop the route on the other. This has been solved by adding a extra junction on one of the segments.
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2355 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.0 (BETA) / 04.02.2014

Postby fernandoanguita » Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:21 pm

Hi !

Validator is becoming more and more useful every day, nice and quick development.
Thanks for all the updates and improvements.

Still I have a situation with "Same endpoints drivable segments".

Here is the permalink.

The issue is that one segment goes one way ant the other is the return way.
There is no mistake on the roads, thus when one segment goes one way ant the other segment goes the other way, there is no error and should not be highlighted.

I hope you can fix this to prevent a false positive highlight.

Best regards, from Concepción, Chile,
fernandoanguita
Master Raider
Master Raider
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:53 am
Location: Concepción, Chile
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 472 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.0 (BETA) / 04.02.2014

Postby berestovskyy » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:50 pm

04.02.2014 v0.6.0:
- NEW search tab: search for your edits, recently modified segments or specific city name
(see the details below)
- NEW for ALL 'SLOW: No connection at node A/B':
a dead-end node is within 5m from another segment
- NEW for ALL 'Too short segment'
(drivable non-dead-end less than 2m long segment)
- NEW for AT, CH, DE 'Incorrect Freeway elevation'
- NEW for ALL right-hand traffic countries
'Unusual B-A drivable roundabout direction'
- UPD 'Construction zone': TRAVAUX for France, GF, NC, RE
- UPD roundabout checks only for drivable segments now
- ENABLED for AT, CH, DE 'Two-way Freeway segment'
'Incorrect Freeway lock level'
- DISABLED for (almost) ALL
'Walking Trail instead of a Railroad'
'Unneeded name on one-way Ramp'

New search tab:
Updated since - report/highlight segments, updated since a specific date
City name - this field supports lists (city1, city2), wildcards (*) and negation (!)
Examples:
Greater * Area
!Paris, * - will match any city but Paris
r*, s* - will match any city starting with letter r or s

Plans
I'd like to stabilize Validator, so no new features for some time. I will still enable/disable checks on your request, accept translations, exceptions etc.

Please report bugs, false positives (with permalinks), typos etc.

Thanks!
berestovskyy
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:50 pm
Has thanked: 254 times
Been thanked: 704 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: 865
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 248 times

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

Postby CBenson » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:16 pm

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. 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.
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2355 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: 865
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 248 times

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

Postby CBenson » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:58 pm

SuperDave1426 wrote: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.

Exactly. Even less work is just having a street with no roundabout at all.

SuperDave1426 wrote: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.

A couple of thoughts.
1) I didn't say they weren't roundabounts, just that they weren't worth mapping.
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.
3) I still don't see the advantage of an instruction that says "at the roundabout continue straight" or "at the roundabout take the first exit," when there are no other roads to take. The roundabout as a corner does confuse me. I prefer "take at left at . . .", to "at the roundabout take the first exit", if the only things I can do are turn left or go back the way I came. If its truly a big honkin' circle, I'd prefer to get a turn right at State Circle and then get a turn right on Main St instruction.

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.
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2355 times

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

Postby sketch » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:19 pm

dbraughlr wrote:
sketch wrote:there's no reason* to have the extraneous name taking up space in the Waze database. It's just streamlining.

Whether the name takes up space is the database is a matter of how the database is designed. It doesn't affect routing. Regardless, it should not be the rationale driving this change.

Map simplicity is cited as a rationale by people around here pretty often. I don't personally always agree with it—accurate reflection of reality is more important—but I do understand that there is an interest in keeping the data size smaller, thereby reducing the amount of data that needs to be pulled by the client. A small difference, yes, but the kind of thing that adds up if it's taken as a matter of course.

Really, though, I'm not the one to rationalize that. It's not a cause my heart's really in. The example used is the kind of case where I wouldn't remove a ramp name if I came across it.

The better rationalization for this is simplicity in editing. For ramp segments like these, it's a lot easier to deal with if the only one you have to fix the name on is the long one that the two smaller segments lead into. The example shown earlier, on the other hand, may be easier to edit if the name is kept. Here's another example of that.

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.

Many editors also landmark Best Buys and Burger Kings, doesn't mean they're right. Instead of disallowing them from landmarking, we should be teaching them not to landmark. Likewise, we should be teaching editors to take much of what they see in Validator with a grain of salt.

But yes, I agree that this particular check should be a "note". Notes are blue, informational, and turned off by default.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5923
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1422 times
Been thanked: 1949 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: 865
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 248 times

PreviousNext

Return to Addons, Extensions, and Scripts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EduardoCarvajal, KuniaKid, laurenthembprd, ramblinwreck_81