Points on concurrent routes mixed hidden/visible?

[Jim]

All of the new datachecks are also now live in the default DB.

[yakra]

Thanks for all your work on this.

Maybe this could/should be its own thread, but I would really love the ability to filter datacheck results by region/multiple regions.

[oscar]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the expanded Datacheck seems to be picking up as "hidden_junctions" co-locations of hidden shaping points with the same name (+X followed by six digits) and coordinates within concurrent segments of two different route files. This happened in three places in Quebec, in the concurrence between A-85Not and TCH Main, since I simply did a copy-and-splice to synch the new A-85Not route file with TCHMai.

I can always cross these off as false positives, but I'm unsure what purpose there is in flagging hidden-hidden co-locations in the first place. It wouldn't surprise me if the same issue exists on some other concurrent routes.

No such errors flagged for the concurrent segments of TCH Main with A-20, an older A- segment whose hidden waypoint labels (in both files) have three or fewer digits after the +X.

[si404]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the expanded Datacheck seems to be picking up as "hidden_junctions" co-locations of hidden shaping points with the same name (+X followed by six digits) and coordinates within concurrent segments of two different route files.

They aren't concurrent, hence the errors. A hidden junction is where a shaping point has more than two points either side of it. Looking at QC in mapview, the starred points don't tie up on the two routes.

[oscar]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the expanded Datacheck seems to be picking up as "hidden_junctions" co-locations of hidden shaping points with the same name (+X followed by six digits) and coordinates within concurrent segments of two different route files.

They aren't concurrent, hence the errors. A hidden junction is where a shaping point has more than two points either side of it. Looking at QC in mapview, the starred points don't tie up on the two routes.

Gotcha. i'll submit a revised qc.tchmai route file to resynch it with qc.a085not, hope that makes the new Datacheck errors go away.

[rickmastfan67]

The datacheck page needs some work Jim.  It's cutting off entries on some routes where there are 3 routes that need to be mentioned.

Case in point, the 'US-311' entry.
nc.us311;US311/US220BusMad/NC;;;HIDDEN_JUNCTION;3

Sure, I can tell that it wants to reference a NC route, but which is it?  I know by looking at the map, it's NC-704, but there are 2 intersections that have US-311, US-220 Bus-Mad, & NC-704 intersecting since there is a multiplex there.  Can't tell what label you need to look for (however when you look at the HB, it's kinda clear) as well since the line doesn't mention it.

So, this datacheck needs a little more work.  That or expand the column so it can display everything.

[Jim]

The datacheck page needs some work Jim.  It's cutting off entries on some routes where there are 3 routes that need to be mentioned.

Case in point, the 'US-311' entry.
nc.us311;US311/US220BusMad/NC;;;HIDDEN_JUNCTION;3

Sure, I can tell that it wants to reference a NC route, but which is it?  I know by looking at the map, it's NC-704, but there are 2 intersections that have US-311, US-220 Bus-Mad, & NC-704 intersecting since there is a multiplex there.  Can't tell what label you need to look for (however when you look at the HB, it's kinda clear) as well since the line doesn't mention it.

So, this datacheck needs a little more work.  That or expand the column so it can display everything.

I didn't realize the field was so small.  It's actually three 20-char fields, which until this new check, each would hold a single label.  Now these "graph" labels are much longer.  I'm not sure I want to expand the field for just a few of 11,640 current datacheck entries.  I'll think about this, and I'm open to suggestions.  For now, I don't think it makes sense to mark any of these as false positives (would it ever?), so at least any later format change wouldn't cause trouble with FP entries.

[Jim]

I'm going to expand that field in the next site update (running soon) so all of us can find the errors.  I will probably shorten it back up once these errors are all resolved.