wpt editor: Option to switch hwy data to rail data behavior

[michihdeu]

i.e. all data checks being omitted should also be disabled in wpt editor. Please refer to: https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/604

• [ ] Disable LONG_UNDERSCORE errors generally
• [ ] Disable SHARP_ANGLE errors if it's 360°

Don't forget updating the manual.

Idea: We might use the Change layout button, or use the selection box to the right of the button. Both features are actually useless. The latter would enable selecting more than just two modes, e.g. for ski lifts or ferries or whatsoever.

[jteresco]

With disabling LONG_UNDERSCORE, is the intent to disable it completely, or only when the points begin with +DIV_ or +SKIP_?

[michihdeu]

With disabling LONG_UNDERSCORE, is the intent to disable it completely, or only when the points begin with +DIV_ or +SKIP_?

@Duke87ofST wrote:

We need to just kill the underscore-related datachecks for rail.

I have no preference though.

[Duke87ofST]

I'd be fine either way but I will note this datacheck only exists to enforce esoterica in waypoint labeling guidelines for roads. I don't think there is any need to keep it.

Likewise for LABEL_UNDERSCORES which also comes into play here

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 15:21 Michael @.***> wrote:

With disabling LONGUNDERSCORE, is the intent to disable it completely, or only when the points begin with +DIV or +SKIP_?

@Duke87ofST https://github.com/Duke87ofST wrote https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/629#issuecomment-1684147138:

We need to just kill the underscore-related datachecks for rail.

I have no preference though.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/765#issuecomment-1684342170, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFORC6HTQFMHJJ5JBK4ME53XV66DRANCNFSM6AAAAAA3V2J5D4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[jteresco]

I can easily add conditions on the web front end to ignore the datachecks we don't care about when it's rail instead of highway data. I will do that if there's some urgency.

I would prefer to do something more comprehensive: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5705.0

[michihdeu]

I'd generally disable VISIBLE_DISTANCE errors for hwy + rail. LONG_SEGMENT for rail. They make no sense at all for rail.

Edit: Also related: https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/59

[michihdeu]

VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC needs to be ignored for railways - or modified on the long term only ignoring if there is a SKIP prefix.

[Duke87ofST]

Note that VISIBLE_DISTANCE already doesn't show for active systems, only devel and preview. I think it's fine as such for roads, certainly, since it exists to help prevent excessive waypoint spacing. Now, unlike with roads, someone's travels on a railroad can only end at stations.

But I do think this and LONG_SEGMENT are both still useful for flagging locations you may have forgotten to add points. Just have both not show for active systems so they aren't a bother to have to mark FP.

On Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 08:04 Michael @.***> wrote:

I'd generally disable VISIBLE_DISTANCE errors for hwy + rail. LONG_SEGMENT for rail. They make no sense at all for rail.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/765#issuecomment-1684928559, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFORC6C4WNNVKTYFDFW5RVDXWCTTPANCNFSM6AAAAAA3V2J5D4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[michihdeu]

Note that VISIBLE_DISTANCE already doesn't show for active systems, only devel and preview.

And in wpt editor. Which is annoying!

But I do think this and LONG_SEGMENT are both still useful for flagging locations you may have forgotten to add points. Just have both not show for active systems so they aren't a bother to have to mark FP.

We do not yet have many long-distance services with little stops in RB but we already have 30 errors: https://tmrail.teresco.org/devel/datacheck.php?show=LONG_SEGMENT I don't see any benefit for railways.

[Duke87ofST]

I like having VISIBLE_DISTANCE in the wpt editor.

LONG_SEGMENT meanwhile only triggers if it's >20 miles between points of any kind. Yes, long distance trains will frequently go further than that without stopping, but a route needs to be really abnormaly straight to go

20 miles without even having a shaping point. So if this error is frequently bothering you with false positives you're doing something wrong.

On Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 12:38 Michael @.***> wrote:

Note that VISIBLE_DISTANCE already doesn't show for active systems, only devel and preview.

And in wpt editor. Which is annoying!

But I do think this and LONG_SEGMENT are both still useful for flagging locations you may have forgotten to add points. Just have both not show for active systems so they aren't a bother to have to mark FP.

We do not yet have many long-distance services with little stops in RB but we already have 30 errors: https://tmrail.teresco.org/devel/datacheck.php?show=LONG_SEGMENT I don't see any benefit for railways.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/765#issuecomment-1685041463, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFORC6HWH2YROKKKKSYUWQDXWDTZZANCNFSM6AAAAAA3V2J5D4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>