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

[dbraughlr]

I request additional options:

• Exclude any segment with name containing "CONST ZN".
• Flag any segments with name containing "CONST ZN".
  

[dbraughlr]

I don't see why they should be exceptions. All the lowercase ones in California are wrong and should be capitalized.

[dbraughlr]

So I remove all exceptions but the "to" for the ramps, right?

For the first word of any street name, yes. Not every connector is a ramp, so road type is not a factor. If the first word is "to", it should be lowercase.

There exists a street (deKoven Dr, Middletown, CT) which starts with two lowercase letters on the BGS. This is a name, not a word, and isn't going to appear on a list; rather it is detectable by the pattern that that it matches 'de' followed immediately by a capital letter (not a space). This is the only example so far I have seen for the entire USA of a street name that is not capitalized. Some might described it as a quirk, oddity, or affectation.

[dbraughlr]

It reports Walking Trails with level -5.

Why is it wrong for walking trails, boardwalks, and runways to be elevation -5?
I hadn't heard that -5 means railroad. -5 is just a convention that mean do not connect to roadway.

I don't see why a walking trail with elevation -5 is an error. What else should it be?
"Rails to trails" are very popular. Many trails follow old RR rights-of-way.

A useful check is a non-drivable type junctioned with a drivable type.

[dbraughlr]

So, this check should probably be adjusted to alert for any segment under [X] m long

... for any drivable segment except a terminal (dead-end) segment under [X] m long ...

[dbraughlr]

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 in 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.

[dbraughlr]

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.

[dbraughlr]

For US Street name starts with lowercase letter, the only exception is "to".

Too short segment should not apply to terminal segments (those connected at only one end). For one-way freeway/highway/ramp type roads, length must be >= 5 m.

Rule Walking Trail elevation = -5 is arbitrary. I did not see where anyone came forward to explain why he cares.

The validation should be Non-drivable segment junctions with drivable road and apply to any segment of a non-drivable type having an endpoint at a junction with a drivable type. Additional validation of Drivable segment has elevation = -5 could turn up an error somewhere.

[dbraughlr]

Rule Walking Trail elevation = -5 is arbitrary. I did not see where anyone came forward to explain why he cares.

I did, two pages ago. "Some communities have been using Walking Trails at elevation -5 to signify railroads as a matter of editor policy."

That isn't an explanation of the error. Of what is this a useful check?

I can't fathom any reason an actual walking trail would be set to elevation -5.

As a matter of editor policy, all non-drivable road types (including railroads, runways, boardwalks, stairs, and walking trails) have elevation set to -5 per established convention. -5 indicates that the segment is not to be attached to the drivable roadways "to prevent false system reporting that think the roads should be connected.".

[dbraughlr]

I don't know of this convention

Regardless, my quote is from the wiki.