Users claim no road...but it's there!

by **pickleman** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:15 pm

What do you think of this? Multiple reports say there is no N. Saginaw Rd, but it looks to be there on the map. Could be one user having multiple problems I suppose, but is there a way to see if this road is reading on the system? It does appear in the Live Map.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=3&lat ... s=24041446

Thanks.

by **zombie16** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:47 pm

I can't see the URs, but it looks like turn restrictions at Dublin Ave might be causing the issue. There are also a lot of extraneous nodes along N Saginaw Rd that should be removed.

by **pickleman** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:00 pm

Hmm, I don't know about that. All the reports show users coming eastbound on N. Saginaw Rd. There is only one Dublin road restriction, and that's turning westbound.

I can clean up the nodes, but I must say that there are tons of places with multiple nodes like that and they don't effect the routing.

Now, in a situation like this, what do you do with the complaints? Do you mark them as solved, not identified, or just leave them open?

dmcconachie · by **dmcconachie** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:16 pm

Each node adds roughly 5s to routing. It may not appear that they affect routing but they do.

via Tapatalk

by **jasonh300** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:24 pm

All of those reports are on the same day, and they're all in a line. Most likely, some user had a lapse in network coverage, the roads disappeared from his screen because the tile didn't load, and he/she kept sending URs until the road reappeared. Or it could be that the user had Zoom by Speed set, and was going too fast for for a Street type segment to show on the map. The time of day doesn't show on the URs, but I"d be willing to bet that they all were sent within a minute or two of each other.

If that road's a main thoroughfare, you could always make it a Primary Street and the zoom problem wouldn't happen anymore.

Either way, just mark them all as Solved or Not Identified and don't worry about it.

by **shawndoc** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 pm

The satellite images are quite old. Is it possible the road no longer connects due to new (or current) construction?

by **jasonh300** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:13 pm

shawndoc wrote:The satellite images are quite old. Is it possible the road no longer connects due to new (or current) construction?

Whoever made the reports drove the entire length of the road. Missing road generally means that the road isn't showing on the map.

by **pickleman** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:16 pm

Thanks everyone!

by **gettingthere** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:02 am

dmcconachie wrote:Each node adds roughly 5s to routing. It may not appear that they affect routing but they do.

Although Waze has stated recently that nodes that are in locations without intersecting roads don't add any penalty.

dmcconachie · by **dmcconachie** » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:02 am

gettingthere wrote:
dmcconachie wrote:Each node adds roughly 5s to routing. It may not appear that they affect routing but they do.

Although Waze has stated recently that nodes that are in locations without intersecting roads don't add any penalty.

Sigh, so it's just another of those depends who you speak to "features"

via Tapatalk