[Script] WME Validator v2020.11.1 (PLACES BETA)

[carloslaso]

Just FYI, here is the list of codes for each ${type}:
...

Excuse the RegEx tutorial

Thanks for the tutorial, it is going straight to my evernote.

[carloslaso]

Luckily, Javascript itself is incredibly malleable, so instead of modifying the script, let's modify a part of Javascript that the script relies on instead ... at least in Firefox, adding this peace of code directly under the LICENSE comment in the Greasemonkey script makes the script work again:

Code: Select all

Date.now = function() {
};

Mind you, this may break all kinds of things, but as an emergency procedure while we wait for a new update, it works.

Just tried it under Tampermonkey and it works for Chrome.

I can confirm it works in chrome

[ img ]

[carloslaso]

I think I have searched but I have found nothing about FW, MH and mH with city names, I tried some Regex and failed

[carloslaso]

FYI ferries (at least in the USA) are now using type 15

Same in México.

[CBenson]

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.

[CBenson]

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

[CBenson]

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.

Did it actually route the wrong way, or was the purple route in WME drawn the wrong way?

Not sure. I haven't seen an example since I realized the purple route might not be the actual route given in the client.

[CBenson]

Otherwise we have to add a node in the middle of one of the two segments on the roundabout. That seems like unnecessary work.

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. I still don't really understand the point of mapping roundabouts with only two segments. 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.

[CBenson]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.