Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
| Regel 8: | Regel 8: | ||
The idea behind the locking was to limit the number of PB's and WT's as much as possible. So an Area Manager could check the [[Non-drivable roads|non-drivable segments]]. If the AM thought they should stay, the AM would lock on '''L3''' or otherwise delete the segment. If the segment was recently added the editor who added it should be contacted to explain why the segment is deleted.<br /> | The idea behind the locking was to limit the number of PB's and WT's as much as possible. So an Area Manager could check the [[Non-drivable roads|non-drivable segments]]. If the AM thought they should stay, the AM would lock on '''L3''' or otherwise delete the segment. If the segment was recently added the editor who added it should be contacted to explain why the segment is deleted.<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
The locking standard makes sense because of the routing consequences of improper mapped [[Non-drivable roads|non-drivable roads]] with possible destinations. Disconnecting of a [[Walking trail|WT]] can have a great impact on the routing. Since the introduction of parking place suggestions based on walking time, connecting [[Pedestrian Boardwalk|PB's]] is also of the utmost importance. Locking is important because | The locking standard makes sense because of the routing consequences of improper mapped [[Non-drivable roads|non-drivable roads]] with possible destinations. Disconnecting of a [[Walking trail|WT]] can have a great impact on the routing. Since the introduction of parking place suggestions based on walking time, connecting [[Pedestrian Boardwalk|PB's]] is also of the utmost importance. Locking is important because the role of the non-drivable roads is not for every (starting) editor clear.<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
In Belgium the locking standard is practically left since the introduction of the <i>phantom nodes</i>. The suggestion was made that this could be because a correct connection of WT's/PB's has less impact compaired to the Netherlands.<br /> | In Belgium the locking standard is practically left since the introduction of the <i>phantom nodes</i>. The suggestion was made that this could be because a correct connection of WT's/PB's has less impact compaired to the Netherlands.<br /> | ||
Versie van 31 mei 2018 23:00
Non-drivable roads lock level
Standard WT/PB locking is on L3, regardless added HN.
The idea behind the locking was to limit the number of PB's and WT's as much as possible. So an Area Manager could check the non-drivable segments. If the AM thought they should stay, the AM would lock on L3 or otherwise delete the segment. If the segment was recently added the editor who added it should be contacted to explain why the segment is deleted.
The locking standard makes sense because of the routing consequences of improper mapped non-drivable roads with possible destinations. Disconnecting of a WT can have a great impact on the routing. Since the introduction of parking place suggestions based on walking time, connecting PB's is also of the utmost importance. Locking is important because the role of the non-drivable roads is not for every (starting) editor clear.
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.
Perhaps the Magic script can be used to highlight PB/WT segments that are not according our current standards: locked at L3 and connected to other drivable/non-driveble roads.
- Above text is based on the discussion held in the Slack # team-wazeopdia channel, 31-May-2018.