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

[kentsmith9]

I could have missed the discussion on this one, but how does this determine it is unnecessary?

If this one-way Ramp has a turn enabled to another one-way Ramp. Here is an example: permalink

Sorry, maybe the condition is not sufficient for US, so please let me know if I shall disable the check for US or add more ifs.

I am not sure what this means by your description of "turn enabled". Many of the one way ramps in the US will lead to other one way ramps with a turn enabled. I presume this is getting lost in the translation.

Either way I do think we should consider disabling it in the US. I don't know of any situation where the name in the ramp causes problems except the point I made about short ramp segments possibly. In that case maybe we do some tests to see when it is too short and then you give the warning.

[kentsmith9]

Found a situation with a roundabout giving a warning "Same endpoints drivable segments." In this case assuming the reports that the routing engine has trouble with these by not starting people in the right place, a roundabout with the two segments going only opposite directions would force the routing server to only go through one way or the other. And worst case someone starting on the roundabout or ending on the roundabout can likely figure out the route in that circle.

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

[kentsmith9]

A ramp must be connected at both ends and the junction at one end must have a freeway/highway/ramp segment.

I don't think "junction at one end must have a freeway/highway/ramp segment" is true based on my knowledge.

Ramps in Waze should only be used for situations where two roadways have a grade separated intersection or if the situation matches one of the Exceptions listed below. {Note the exceptions are for Ramps at grade.}

Unless someone can identify the problem (which then can be added to the Wiki), it is certainly possible for one (Primary) Street to pass over another (Primary) Street and have a connector between them marked as a Ramp. In that situation a Ramp is fully legitimate, but not required.

I propose the Validator not restrict the roadway type on either junction of a Ramp, but I am OK with the number of connections being required.

[kentsmith9]

I don't think "junction at one end must have a freeway/highway/ramp segment" is true based on my knowledge.

Unless someone can identify the problem (which then can be added to the Wiki), it is certainly possible for one (Primary) Street to pass over another (Primary) Street and have a connector between them marked as a Ramp. In that situation a Ramp is fully legitimate, but not required.

Kent, I think the vast majority of situations will have a ramp connecting to a mH, MH or Fwy. However, you are correct, and I have these in my area, where primary streets cross over and there are ramps used to connect them. I believe these are legitimate use of ramps as well. "Grade-separated" doesn't exclude Primary Street type.

I agree 100% with all elements of your comment.

[kentsmith9]

Unless someone can identify the problem

Simply put, there is not Road Type for connectors below the class of highways (freeways, MH, mH).
...

Maybe this discussion should be split from this thread again, but I disagree with this statement. The guidance in the US, as noted above, is that ramps are to be used for grade separated connections. We could discuss changes, but "highway function" is term that we can endlessly debate. Again we should likely have that debate elsewhere.

If I understand dbraughlr's comment, he is not saying there is a problem with the current use of Ramps that the validator should prevent, but is proposing a change be made in the future. Therefore the Validator should allow ramps to connect between two Streets or Primary Streets as well as the Highway class types since they do exist in real life and do not cause routing problems.

[kentsmith9]

What do we think about moving much of the content in the various posts like Error Check List into the Wiki. We could put this list into a sortable table with the columns:

• Number
• Name
• Description
• Category (warnings, errors, etc.)
• Countries

I found a Wiki module we could add that allows filtering http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User_bl ... ong_Tables, but it does not allow selective filtering (only filters by entire cell contents, not partial). Maybe there is something else out there we can use. Then we could filter the description field for "Turns" to see anything related to turns, etc.

[kentsmith9]

What do we think about moving much of the content in the various posts like Error Check List into the Wiki.

Frankly I'm happy with the current list of checks, because it takes me no time to update the list. I just click Settings->About->Available checks and copy the list into my forum post.

Understood. Is there any chance to have the tool resort the list into some order (numeric, alphabetical, type, etc)? Or is it in one now and I don't recognize it?

I had an idea to create a wiki page with the descriptions and screenshots of the issues, but at the moment I have no time for that even if it's now allowed by Waze staff. Sorry

Also understood. The user community controls the Wiki, so we can do whatever makes the most sense if the people doing the work have time.

[kentsmith9]

The user community controls the Wiki, so we can do whatever makes the most sense

Well, in December I got the opposite answer, so I decided put everything on the forum...

At that time, I "spoke" for the community in that I didn't think it was a good idea. Also, previously, Waze didn't want the wiki to document too many details about userscripts. If that has changed...

I forgot about that post. Let me go ask the question because I am told something different and have made changes on behalf of Waze because they say the Wiki is solely maintained by the user community.

[kentsmith9]

Is there any chance to have the tool resort the list into some order (numeric, alphabetical, type, etc)? Or is it in one now and I don't recognize it?

There is an order and Validator uses it everywhere (in the report, in segment's properties, in the list of available checks etc). The checks are ordered by the severity first (errors come first) and then alphabetically.

Thanks for clarifying. So the numbers are tagging the order in which the check was added, but no relation to the order of execution. In this case I guess we just need to ensure the link to that thread entry is clearly identified in the first post. I see it is there, but when I first looked I missed it somehow. I was probably just glossing through it too fast.

Because it is easy enough to use the browser Find once you get to that post, I don't think we want to spend too much time constantly updating a Wiki page that will require reformatting of that data. We should be able to at least put in a link to that entry from the Wiki. I will confirm.

[kentsmith9]

... IMO it's better to create new more comprehensive check with a list of allowed lowercase words (to, a, the, de, la, etc) and report any other lowercase word no matter its position in the street name.

"De La Vina St" → pass.
"Norte de La Vina St" → pass.
"E del Paso Blvd" → error.
"Van de Vanter Ave" → pass.
"W de Vanter Ave" → error.
"S De la Cruz Blvd" → error.
"N Via de las Cruces Hwy" → error.

Why are these two an error?
"S De la Cruz Blvd" → error.
"N Via de las Cruces Hwy" → error.