Discussion for the unofficial, community-developed addons, extensions and scripts built for the Waze Map Editor.

The official index of these tools is the Community Plugins, Extensions and Tools wiki page.
Post by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote:... 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.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote: In both cases to check if a segment intersects with another, we have to compare it with every other segment on the map = very slow. Sorry, it won't be implemented unless we found another solution :(
Comparisons can be greatly pruned by segregating roads into smaller map squares. Roads which are completely confined to a small square need be checked only other roads which intersect the square it occupies. No segment needs to be checked against all others. Most segments need to be checked against only other roads in the local area.

Create buckets to divide the map into equal sized squares, say 1 km².

For each segment on the map, determine which square(s) it crosses and add it (or a portion of it) to the bucket for those square(s). Repeat until all segments are distributed to the buckets.

For each bucket, compare each segment (or portions of a segment) against all those segments in that bucket.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
kentsmith9 wrote:Why are these two an error?
"S De la Cruz Blvd" → error.
"N Via de las Cruces Hwy" → error.
1. Failure to capitalize "La" of "La Cruz".
2. Failure to capitalize "Las" of "Las Cruces".
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote: No doubt those buckets will reduce number of comparisons, but add complexity. And still there are will be thousands of comparisons and the check still will be very slow.
- a few thousand comparisons - not hundreds of thousands. But if it is too slow, make the squares smaller.
When the squares are under 25 m², the algorithm approaches Ο(n) time.
berestovskyy wrote: So we're looking at quite slow and complex check here. But what's is the "goal"? Does this non-ground elevation affects TTS or routing?
I would be looking for drivable segments at the same elevation that touch or cross without forming a junction. These might look okay, but they do not route correctly.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
kentsmith9 wrote: I saw a discrepancy between your two statements that I could not identify the correct solution.
Are you now satisfied that there is no discrepancy between my statements?
"La Cruz" gets capitalized for the same reason that "Las Cruces" is capitalized.
kentsmith9 wrote: I did not see the official list linked to what letters are supposed to be allowed in each country.
Current exceptions for the USA for first word of name:
  • to
kentsmith9 wrote: I now understand the second one if 'las' is not on the accepted list. I would then understand the first one if 'de' was not on the original displayed list.
The main point of my post was to demonstrate that allowing a word to be lowercase necessarily will fail to detect when that word should be capitalized and that the compass direction (e.g., "W de Vanter Ave") must be excluded when evaluating what is the first letter of a name.

Note to sketch: We have one (quirky) example so far in the entire USA. Programming Validator to allow some lowercase exceptions carries that trade-off that an incorrectly lowercase usage is accepted just so the rare exception won't be flagged.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Last edited by dbraughlr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:A Validator check for first letter notwithstanding initial compass directions is fine ...
I am saying that this is necessary to make check #94 complete - and that checking every word against a list cannot substitute for checking the first actual word alone. So we need a list of words that are ignored at the beginning of a name ("E", "N", "S", "W", "to"). A note that false positives are theoretically possible is fine by me.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
kentsmith9 wrote: Thanks for the list. Is this list agreed by the whole USA community? I am not questioning your accuracy,
No. Go right ahead. I just made up the list myself as I was replying. It is not canon or accurate.
kentsmith9 wrote: Maybe the problem is berestovskyy's message was for all countries and yours was only for the USA?

But if that is the case, in California we have plenty of Spanish roads, so if "la" and "de" are allowed in other countries, why not allow it in the US?
I cannot comment much on other countries.

In California, we have many road names derived from Spanish, but "La" and "El" are always capitalized; "Del" is capitalized when it is the first real word of the name.

Rules for other countries do not necessary apply to the US.
They are capitalized in Mexico, so why shouldn't they be capitalized in the USA?
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
Please move these posts to that thread (which was for the two-way ramp problem).
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
A bowtie U-turn is not too sharp. These turns probably can be detected as a turn from a one-way street to a one-way street with the same or similar name.

Spreading the nodes can lead to an incorrect "stay right" instruction for traffic continuing straight through the intersection or missing road reports for drivers making the U-turn.
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Post by dbraughlr
berestovskyy wrote:Validator does not report too-sharp bow-ties.
...
Sure, Validator can look for similar street names, but I guess it will eliminate any use of this check, because the check basically was designed to detect situations like this...
Yes, this is just a transition from divided to undivided. I thought that it was a simple case for demonstration. I didn't know that you had logic to detect an intersection.

A transition like this is valid and should be permitted.
What error would ever be missed by permitting this specific configuration?
dbraughlr
Posts: 569
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times