unless we can get rid of all VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC errors (which I continue to support strongly),
IMO, VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC should stay -- although it no longer exists, there's the canonical example of Future I-22 ending at an unopened (and thus hidden) interchange on I-269.
The
TX &
NY examples, I added in order to enable
Intersecting/Concurrent Routes for the routes with the visible point.
In these cases, concurrencies shouldn't be affected; the points should be visible on all routes comprising one incident edge, and hidden on all routes comprising another incident edge.
One option is to restrict cases where these are reported, by examining the
visibility of the point on each concurrent route on each incident simple edge.
I'll have a look at the siteupdate code shortly, to refresh myself on when & how VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC is flagged, and the surrounding context.
Mapview code will need to be modified to handle this.
I support this too, of course. Whether or not VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC detection is ultimately changed, this would be the more robust solution if/when new VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC errors are introduced.
Looks like Jim already has this in the works though.
