Datacheck: Hidden termini

[jteresco]

Moving from TravelMapping/Web#235

[yakra]

my original comment:

I suggest adding a new HIDDEN_TERMINUS datacheck, for cases where a waypoint at the beginning or end of a route has a hidden primary label.

Case in point:
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=or.or018

[yakra]

Under certain conditions, a hidden waypoint at the beginning of a file can cause the site update code to crash.
labels.append(last_visible.label)

[yakra]

OR18's hidden endpoint causes this non-fatal error during the graph generation process:
ERROR: segment name mismatch in HighwayGraphCollapsedEdgeInfo: edge1 named OR18,OR99W edge2 named OR99W
Looking at Oregon's collapsed graph in the HDX, this results in the OR18,OR99W segment incorrectly extending to OR99W@9thSt. The simple graph is fine.

Look like creating an exception for this type of case and handling it within the graph generation routines would require a significant rewrite.

Nonetheless,

# segment names should match as routes should not start or end
# nor should concurrencies begin or end at a hidden point

These points hold. Especially the first one, which defeats the purpose of the site by not allowing users to find waypoint labels to add to their .lists to mark the routes as clinched (Unless they really know what's going on "under the hood" and can find their way around GitHub).

[yakra]

I'd close this issue but don't appear to have permission

[jteresco]

I believe we decided when this first came up that there are legitimate cases, such as I-22 ending at what was then a not yet open interchange with I-269. That case, at least, is gone with the opening of that segment of I-269. So for cases where this is legitimate, should we allow a datacheck FP?

[yakra]

That would be a legitimate case of a HIDDEN_JUNCTION VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC.
The point was hidden on I-269, but the endpoint of I-22 itself was visible.
Edit: Derp. Neither hidden nor visible on I-269 if I-269 doesn't even exist yet!
The point was hidden on US78.