I like it. The only thing I'd change is "Hash" because just labeling it 'hash' makes me expect to see a cryptographic hash. It's naming the typographical symbol in the url instead of what comes after the hash mark. Literally the opposite direction from what is surely meant.

That "hash" has a name: Fragment Identifier. There's probably a more user friendly term or even description. It's not a hash that shows up in that result. Only its symbol in the URL that potentially points to an aref. That's why they're so good for Table of Contents.

I run a scraper tool and I built this tool to analyze and edit complex url structures(think of multiple query params, paths, etc) simply because something like this didn't exist for my needs.

Let me know if you have any questions!