[Script] WME Validator v2021.3.5 (+ PLACES BETA)

[KB_Steveo]

Berestovskyy, could you remove the dead-end U turn check, and make it such that the "unconfirmed turn" checks etc. don't look at dead-end nodes? The ability to edit them has been removed from the editor.

Going to chime in here because I just figured out a way to edit u-turns on dead-ends but want to make sure I'm not breaking something else. Basically I can edit the u-turn on a dead end node by temporarily drawing a short two-way road segment and attaching it to the dead-end. Then I can edit the dead-end (since it's now not a dead-end) to disallow the U-turn. After that is done, I then delete the temporary road segment I just drew. The validator then stops complaining about it.

This also works with "Node A|B: Unconfirmed turn on minor road" where A or B is at a dead end.

It's a hassle. Maybe it's a waste of time to worry about it. Would like to know if it's OK to do this or if creating and deleting a lot of road segments in a short amount of time is "not a good thing."

QW on the end node is even faster

[KB_Steveo]

If I attach a temporary road segment to the end node when it's flagged, it then lights up as a u-turn permitted. I then delete the temporary segment, drag that end node a bit (like I would if resizing a cul-de-sac end point) and then it changes from yellow to purple. I then attach another temporary road to the end and now the u-turn is showing up as prohibited. So just dragging the node around had the side-effect of changing the behavior of the u-turn permission. So something is changing that u-turn as a side-effect of me moving the end node whether I intend to do so or not.

If you have the road selected (with A & B showing up at the end nodes) and move the A (or B) end, you are not really moving a node this way, you are just moving the end of the segment. When you do this, WME automatically creates a brand new, unconfirmed end node on the segment (with no U-turn). (It used to not do that, and that's why you sometimes see roads that are not terminated - and it was a pain to fix )

If you grab the actual end node (without the A or B showing), you will be moving the node with the U-turn (and the road segment follows) and the road should still be highlighted in yellow.

Does it sound like that's what's happening?

[KB_Steveo]

Any word on the non-highlighting of freeways with lock level "automatic (1)"?

I noticed they are still not highlighted on the latest release

[KB_Steveo]

Is it possible for WME Validator to leave newly created roundabouts as one way roads? I had "WME: 2 way segments by default" checked and it was making 2 way roundabouts.

[KB_Steveo]

Validator does seem to be functioning inasmuch as it is highlighting the segments.
I'm seeing thick, bright red roads, and I'm seeing yellow highlights on segment pairs that share the same endpoints.

What browser are you using? There are no highlights happening in Chrome.

[KB_Steveo]

If only it was coded to use a tab like most other addons that are in the user pane.

I think that's been mentioned before. not sure though

[kentsmith9]

Just started playing with the tool. Looks very cool. Great work.

[kentsmith9]

Emmons Circle is the horseshoe with both ends connecting to Wolcott Hill Street.

Emmons Circle needs to be split into two segments. No two segments should have the same end points. It causes all sorts of routing problems, and misidentification of the actual route requested on URs, etc. It also causes issues with inability to locate the correct location when starting on that type of road.

This has been well documented in a few different forum discussions, which the Validator author provided links to earlier in this thread.

There may be some confusion between the different types of "same connections". Let me clarify:

• Loop Roads: One Segment. End-nodes A and B connect to themselves. Routing issues identified and fixes exist in many scripts. Covered in Wiki
• Routing to Same Segment: One Segment. I found a strange routing problem when you start and end navigation on the same single segment. I fully documented it in the forums under Same Segment Routing Problems.
• Parallel Segments: Two Segments. Also called Horseshoe Roads. This situation is like two resistors in parallel. The end nodes A of both segments connect together and the end nodes B of both segments connect together. A real example is here. I also posed this question in the forum under "Same Connections" cause routing issues?

34. Same endpoints drivable segments
What is the problem? Two drivable segments share the same two endpoints: forum reference
How to fix? Split the segment. You might also remove one of the segments if they are identical: instructions
Severity: warning
Countries: any country

This entry is referring to the Parallel Segments/Horseshoe Rd example. The forum reference for 34 actually links to my forum entry that was asking anyone to actually confirm there are problems with this configuration in routing, but there was nothing conclusive. I did point out the other problem with routing to the same segment in that thread, so maybe people got confused what was actually a problem. There were comments this was a known issue with Cartouche, but not necessarily the current WME.

Today I sent a message to the Waze team on that specific issue. I will report back what they say relative to this issue. If anyone has any current routing issues they know about or can find any forum threads showing this is still a problem then let us know and we can add it to the Wiki best practices.

If there are no routing issues that we can still find today I realize this particular warning will help identify segments that lay on top of each other, but these Horseshoe roads are so widespread in suburban neighborhoods I think it will invite unnecessary editing to add a junction. Also if we do leave this in we need to be sure the "remove unnecessary junction nodes" option does suggest removing them. LOL

[kentsmith9]

Thanks!
Let me know when you get an answer.

IMO for the Parallel Segments we can create more precise and reliable check, so I'll disable 'Same endpoints drivable segments' for now.

Sounds good. In the mean time I still think the stacked segments issue is a good one to solve mainly for properly setting restrictions. When I first started in Waze I did not read the instructions and created a bunch of stacked segments by mistake. Then I didn't realize I had turn restrictions on both segments that were conflicting and causing problems, but I did not know the roads had been stacked on top of each other.

Is there a way to detect the geometry for two parallel segments are essentially the same shape? Maybe we only need to find those with no geometry nodes because they are easy to create by accident and easy to be hidden. Segments with many geo nodes would unlikely be matched perfectly with another road.

[kentsmith9]

There are definitely threads about issues with routing related to segments which shared the same endpoints. And this has nothing to do with Cartouche, as it doesn't do routing, so why is that even relevant to the discussion? The issue with the routing server has existed since the days of Cartouche. I doubt Waze will officially have much to say about it because they've never properly responded to the threads displaying the issue.

Don't forget this is also the reason why WME does not allow the starting junction to split a segment if the end junction is on the same segment. It's been built into WME since the very beginning to dissuade this type of loop from being created.

Related threads:
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=70559
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=69415

Thanks for the thread links Alan. I see there are circumstances where it looks like it could be contributing to the problems shown. So far all the examples point to the possibility this is the cause of the problems and I see where it could be, but have we seen any actual situations where a route is sometimes good and sometimes bad and then after inserting the junction it never fails again?

I am not trying to be argumentative, just fully understanding the facts.

I agree the Cartouche example made previously likely does not make sense for routing, but it was not my comment. I came into Waze after WME started, and I am not familiar with all the underlying code elements on segments that might have been set wrong with Cartouche that don't happen any more. If you say it could not affect it, I will not argue that.

As for WME preventing parallel roads, I just created two segments that connect in parallel (Test A and Test B) drawing from the endpoints of Test A with no problem. I then created another segment and then split it with a parallel segment (Test C and Test D) drawing from an endpoint of Test C and then into the middle of Test C with no problem. The only thing WME stops me from doing is creating a parallel road into the middle of a current segment requiring it to create two new junctions, not just one or none (Test E and Test F). https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-122.2 ... TT&env=usa Personally it feels like the prevention of the 3rd example is more of a side effect of a problem with their interface, than being intentional if they allow the first and second example.

I saw your comment from the Waze Mapping Support Twitter Feed about loops now needing 3 segments. https://twitter.com/WazeMapping/status/ ... 2890188801 It appears Waze does indeed believe this is a problem. What I hate is that is seems solvable on their side, but they are pushing this one back to the free workers in the community to fix the problem.

I will definitely keep looking at this one and report back if I find any other new information. In the mean time maybe it is better to have everyone split the parallel road as there is minimal down side even if that is actually not making any difference to routing.