Member review

[DonJ2]

There is recent information from Waze staffer krankyd that may quash this so call '5 second penalty' in regards to junctions and routing. I guess it depends on how you interpret:

http://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 55#p141955

"Working on excessive nodes is indeed painful, but that's not the most important things to get your maps closer to perfection (an additional node has its affects, but routing is not one of them)"

He also continued to say: "There's a minor penalty for crossing a node, but when there are no other options in the node, it's null".

I assume node = junction. I think he's saying that a node connecting only 2 segments will have no penalty (null), which is good to know, but I think all other nodes/junctions that have 3 or more connected segments will still have a penalty (which I thought was 5 seconds, what does he mean by minor penalty? ).

I still think it's possible for routing to be affected by several junctions (three-or-more-segment-junctions) along a route, causing it to pick a route that is not really faster. For example, travelling up a minor highway crossing 10 junctions that have side streets would add a "minor penalty" for each junction (5 seconds each?), even if those junctions are controlled by center turn lanes and not traffic lights. So routing may take you off the highway sooner if the math through the neighborhood is better (even if by only seconds, I think).

I think it's true that from the map editor's perspective, junction delays/penalties do not really matter since there is nothing else we can do to help routing anyway, when there are correct junctions along the route (especially if extra junctions/nodes that only connect 2 segments do not introduce a penalty), but it's still frustrating because we get URs related to routing that we as map editors can not fix or influence.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm really just trying to understand what options we have as map editors to help resolve route-related user reports that seem to be caused by the routing algorithm, not map errors.

[gettingthere]

We know that routing takes into account the number of turns. We have been told by Waze that routing looks to minimize the number of turns (regardless of whether this setting is on or off in the application). So maybe krankyd is touching on that? In cases where a junction involves a turn a routing penalty would be applied.

So:

A junction without a turn = null (zero) penalty in regards to routing.
A junction with a turn = slight penalty (maybe this so called 5 seconds?) in regards to routing.

As nearly always with Waze, the information provided by Waze is incomplete and requires speculation on our part to try to make sense of it. Maybe a language issue? Cultural issue? Waze secret?

[jasonh300]

Is it really true that highways supersede junction penalties? If so, that's good to know.

At one time, it was commonly thought that the higher up the ladder, the less penalty there was for the routing.

Recent info from Waze says that a Primary Street, Street, Service Road and Private Road are all exactly alike, other than the colors on the map, and Primary Streets appear wider on the client and editor, and the street name appears larger.

Minor Hwy, Major Highway and Freeway are also exactly alike, but have a higher priority than the others. If there's an opportunity to take one of these highways, it will.

[fvwazing]

In another thread I gave an example that shows that using an equal piece of major instead of minor is worth a 5 minute detour. Sorry, am using Tapatalk now, so it is hard to reference.

So all highways may be equal, but some seem to be more equal than others.
That could then be explained with a penalty for changing to a lower roadtype - better change from freeway to major and back than to minor and back.
The preference for the higher types would then be a result of the policy of sticking to the highest reached type as long as possible.

[xollob]

Waze. Seriously. Take a look at how Google Map Maker works.
Then abandon the whole map editing game and exit gracefully.

The whole point of unreviewed edits is the immediacy of problem resolution- and I bought into that.
But right now, not one US edit since mid January have been visible to the users.

Your editor craps out, you keep (3 times) bullshitting about when updates will be published, and worse, you are emailing the users with "Poof! Problem solved!".

By comparison, every single one of my edits on Google Maps in that time have been reviewed, professional and courtous feedback given, and published on reference quality maps.

You suck.

#1 wazer in New Jersey 2012.
Area Manager.

Disillusioned? I nearly fell of my unicorn !

[james_8970]

Your editor craps out, you keep (3 times) bullshitting about when updates will be published, and worse, you are emailing the users with "Poof! Problem solved!".

Really don't like this e-mail. People keep reporting problems that don't exist. The e-mail should contain an estimated date when the correction will show otherwise the driver reports the same problem the following day when it has already been altered in the editor. It's becoming a growing problem for me as I have named and routed probably 1/6 of my city in the past 4 days.
James

[gettingthere]

It may seem unreasonable to suggest this - but maybe pause on working Update Requests until we see some progress with a map update / tile rebuild in the USA / Canada?

[dknight212]

Is that to avoid confusing users with problem resolved emails? Or is this a new strike militancy over there?

David, using Tapatalk

[gettingthere]

Is that to avoid confusing users with problem resolved emails?

To avoid Wazer frustration when they don't see their 'poofed' mapped fixes showing up in the Application for weeks and keep opening more Update Requests for something that was already fixed in the editor.

'We' are not used to suffering for such an extended time without updated map tiles on the client!

Waze could really make it clearer if they just adjusted the wording of the Update Request solved emails. It's a couple minutes work for an Intern at Waze to update the damn email. But no...

[james_8970]

The e-mail is poorly worded. I feel that it implies that the second the Wazer gets the e-mail (s)he can expect the map to reflect the update that we did in the editor. This obvious isn't the case and should be clearer to the user. More transparency provides a less frustrating end user experience, otherwise they may feel that their 'help' is being ignored and someone is simply clicking 'solved' to ignore the problem.
James