Talk:Non-drivable roads lock level View history

VisualWikitext
No edit summary
(Added list of arguments)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Talk:Non-drivable roads lock level==
===Arguments '''for''' locking at '''L3'''===


Talk page on [[Non-drivable roads lock level]].<br />
* A segment locked at '''L3''' is seen as confirmed, as non-drivable segments are removed if they do not contribute to routing
<br />
** In practice this only applies to the Netherlands, Belgium does not do this
In Belgium the locking standard is practically left since the introduction of the phantom nodes. The suggestion was made that this could be because a correct connection of WT's/PB's has less impact compaired to the Netherlands.
* Walking Trails have an effect on routing, so they should be locked
** The same logic would require all regular streets to be locked at the same level, but obviously exceptions can be made
* The logic between the categories of non-drivable segments is a bit more complicated for new editors
 
===Arguments '''against''' locking at '''L3'''===
 
* Locking at level 3 will block new editors from adding missing non-drivable segments or adjusting connected local roads, causing frustrations
* Since the introduction of phantom nodes, connecting non-drivable segments no longer creates unwanted nodes on the drivable segments
* There are hardly any reports of errors based on this sort of routing, making a high level lock feel like overkill
 
===Things everybody seems to agree on===
Complex situations should always be locked appropriately. If a segment is important for proper routing, it should be protected against mistakes of starting editors.

Revision as of 08:29, 1 June 2018

Arguments for locking at L3

  • A segment locked at L3 is seen as confirmed, as non-drivable segments are removed if they do not contribute to routing
    • In practice this only applies to the Netherlands, Belgium does not do this
  • Walking Trails have an effect on routing, so they should be locked
    • The same logic would require all regular streets to be locked at the same level, but obviously exceptions can be made
  • The logic between the categories of non-drivable segments is a bit more complicated for new editors

Arguments against locking at L3

  • Locking at level 3 will block new editors from adding missing non-drivable segments or adjusting connected local roads, causing frustrations
  • Since the introduction of phantom nodes, connecting non-drivable segments no longer creates unwanted nodes on the drivable segments
  • There are hardly any reports of errors based on this sort of routing, making a high level lock feel like overkill

Things everybody seems to agree on

Complex situations should always be locked appropriately. If a segment is important for proper routing, it should be protected against mistakes of starting editors.

Retrieved from "https://www.waze.com/wiki/Belgium/index.php?title=Talk:Non-drivable_roads_lock_level&oldid=11882"