Introduce crossing=no and crossing=informal for QA
#36
+91
−17
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- `is_crossing` now includes all `crossing=*`, including "informal" - `is_explicit_crossing_no` (new) handles `crossing=no` - on the QA map, `crossing=no` are purple circles - …they are part of the count of crossings on a junction - A junction is "green" when the sum of crossings and `crossing=no` are the same as edges - The UI shows the crossings and `crossing=no` in the sentence
dabreegster
force-pushed
the
qa-with-crossing-no
branch
from
fd1e1b1 to
75f1d1f
Compare
dabreegster
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2025
Collaborator
dabreegster
left a comment
dabreegster
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you! These changes look great, I made a few code style tweaks and one logic addition
backend/src/audit.rs
Outdated
| f.set_property("arms", GeoJson::from(debug_arms)); | ||
| f.set_property("crossings", GeoJson::from(debug_crossings)); | ||
| f.set_property("explicit_non_crossings", GeoJson::from(debug_explicit_non_crossings)); | ||
| f.set_property("crossing_count", crossing_count); |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The count properties are redundant with the debug info, bit simpler to not duplicate info
| } | ||
| if node.is_crossing() { | ||
| crossings.insert(*n); | ||
| // Stop iterating along this edge when we hit the first crossing |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To handle things like
| {crossingCount} crossing{#if crossingCount !== 1}s{/if} | ||
| {#if explicitNonCrossingCount > 0}, {explicitNonCrossingCount} explicit non-crossing{#if explicitNonCrossingCount !== 1}s{/if}{/if} | ||
| {crossingCount} | ||
| {crossingCount == 1 ? "crossing" : "crossings"} |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thought this would make this more legible, but with the autoformatting, it really doesn't 😅
| tags?: Record<string, string>; | ||
| is_crossing: boolean; | ||
| is_explicit_crossing_no?: boolean; | ||
| is_explicit_crossing_no: boolean; |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The property is always set, so no ?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Following #14 (comment), this PR changes the QA for crossings to include more crossing cases:
is_crossingnow includes allcrossing=*, including "informal"is_explicit_crossing_no(new) handlescrossing=nocrossing=noare purple circlescrossing=noare the same as edgescrossing=noin the sentenceScreenshots:
green with two
crossing=noPlease consider this PR more of a proof of concept. I don't know anything about rust and this was LLM guided. Feel free to close it …