[Script] WME Validator 1.1.20 / 03.11.2016

[Timbones]

If Waze thinks the destination is closer to the segment with restrictions than any other segment, it will override the segment restrictions. This is just like any turn restriction.

Are you sure? In tests I did a little while ago, Waze acted as if the restricted roads didn't exist at all...
(behaviour may have changed since, without warning, as it often does)

[davidg666]

If you look here, there's a pair of segments, and Validator considers the node between them to be unneeded, however the top segment has time-based restrictions (there's a gate there that's closed at night) but the lower segment has no such restriction.

I don't get this. Why would you ever traverse the lower segment just to turn around? Why not have a single segment with the restriction? It doesn't go anywhere else, so regardless of whether it is one or two segments, the routing effect is identical. Or else I'm not getting it...

If Waze thinks the destination is closer to the segment with restrictions than any other segment, it will override the segment restrictions. This is just like any turn restriction.

The only thing this segment restriction does is affect travel along the whole segment, so having two parts is unnecessary.

There are two buildings on the inside of the gate that are accessible at all times from inside the park (it's a very large park with roads throughout that doesn't close completely at night - just the smaller gates close at night). Access to these buildings shouldn't be restricted, only passage *through* the gate should be restricted.

I agree that restricting one single segment would have the same effect on routing because the restriction just imposes a routing penalty and there's no other way to the part of this road that remains accessible, however it feels wrong to mark a bit of road as time-restricted when it isn't.

++David \ davidg666

[dbraughlr]

As for me, I like having a node at the gate. It makes it easier to find the point of access control between the public side and the private side even though there might be no reason to drive up to the gate when it is closed and it makes an "unneeded" node.

[AlanOfTheBerg]

If you look here, there's a pair of segments, and Validator considers the node between them to be unneeded, however the top segment has time-based restrictions (there's a gate there that's closed at night) but the lower segment has no such restriction.

I don't get this. Why would you ever traverse the lower segment just to turn around? Why not have a single segment with the restriction? It doesn't go anywhere else, so regardless of whether it is one or two segments, the routing effect is identical. Or else I'm not getting it...

If Waze thinks the destination is closer to the segment with restrictions than any other segment, it will override the segment restrictions. This is just like any turn restriction.

The only thing this segment restriction does is affect travel along the whole segment, so having two parts is unnecessary.

[davidg666]

I've found what I consider to a bug: unneeded node reported between two segments where one of the segments has time-based restrictions and the other doesn't.

If you look here, there's a pair of segments, and Validator considers the node between them to be unneeded, however the top segment has time-based restrictions (there's a gate there that's closed at night) but the lower segment has no such restriction.

If you think this is a real bug, can you disable reporting of unneeded nodes in cases where one segment has time-based restrictions and the other doesn't? I expect this is a change that should be common to all countries, not just Ireland.

thanks!

++David \ davidg666

[paulkok_my]

Any way to enforce ramps according to guidelines?

Sure, but different countries have different guidelines. Sorry, I have no clue where you are from

At the moment I'd like to see bug reports more than ever

He is from Malaysia

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[berestovskyy]

Any way to enforce ramps according to guidelines?

Sure, but different countries have different guidelines. Sorry, I have no clue where you are from

At the moment I'd like to see bug reports more than ever

[eclectice]

Any way to enforce ramps according to guidelines?

[berestovskyy]

05.02.2014 v0.6.1:
- NEW search option to include/exclude certain checks:
Reported as (see below for the details)
- ENABLED for CZ 'Walking Trail instead of a Railroad'
- fixed few bugs with new and deleted segments

New search tab:
Updated since - highlight/report segments which were modified since a specific date only.

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

New! Reported as - filter for reported issues. This field supports lists, wildcards and negation and matches severities, check titles and check IDs.
Examples:
error - to highlight/report just errors
New road - to highlight/report just segments reported as "New roads"
!40, * - do not highlight/report check #40 (Soft turns on drivable road)
!soft turns*, * - do not highlight/report checks starting with 'soft turns'
36, 37 - to highlight/report just checks #36 and #37 (unneeded node A/B)
*roundabout* - to highlight/report checks with "roundabout" in the title

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

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

Thanks!

[Zirland]

Please enable "Walking trail for railroad" in CZ