Apparently Pedestrian Boardwalks are drivable and routable.

[bgodette]

Permalink
When routing to an address on the 16th Street mall in Denver, Waze wanted me to drive on the 16th Street mall which is marked as a Pedestrian Boardwalk, and has been for at least 2 months.

Currently turns onto the mall are not restricted, however this should NOT matter.

[AlanOfTheBerg]

IMO, walkwazes and other non-driveable roads should always have all turn restrictions explicitly set and the segment set to no entrance, or just disconnect them from the actual driveable roads and set to a different level so there's no "nodes almost touching" errors.

[gettingthere]

I know this is not what other's will recommend - but you can also delete these from the map. Waze is currently not feasible for walking, bicycles, etc. and likely won't ever be if they stick with their current model of commuting traffic avoidance. If they add these modes in the future the pedestrian boardwalks can be added to the map.

Why risk faulty driving directions?

Even if you do disconnect, restrict, etc - to people driving with Waze these look like roads. So I have seen several update request regarding 'street doesn't exist', 'can't drive to the end of the pier by the ocean', 'not a road but a bike path', etc.

[AlanOfTheBerg]

I know this is not what other's will recommend - but you can also delete these from the map.

I didn't want to ruffle too many feathers by mentioning that I often do this.

[jasonm128]

I think it's probably worth keeping the 16th Street Mall in the map but restricting turns. It used to be a regular downtown street but was converted to a pedestrian street with a shuttle bus that runs up and down it in a loop. So it still looks a lot like a regular street just with a huge median and only one lane in each direction. It's also a heavily traveled shopping area (or at least it used to be) so I think if it was missing, you would get a lot of update requests asking for it to be added.

Back to bgodette's original point though, why does Waze EVER route you down a road type that they themselves label as "Non-drivable"? Since I know Waze gets desperate when it can't find another route, they should just completely remove any non-drivable segments from consideration when routing.

[gettingthere]

Back to bgodette's original point though, why does Waze EVER route you down a road type that they themselves label as "Non-drivable"? Since I know Waze gets desperate when it can't find another route, they should just completely remove any non-drivable segments from consideration when routing.

Correct, seems like it should not. But since it does, this has been mentioned many times, and Waze has not done anything about it - best to take another action in this case if it needs to be fixed now.

[jasonm128]

Correct, seems like it should not. But since it does, this has been mentioned many times, and Waze has not done anything about it - best to take another action in this case if it needs to be fixed now.

Point taken. However, it seems like the combination of non-drivable, no-entrance, and restricted turns (assuming they were explicitly set and the junction is now "closed") should be enough to discourage the routing servers. Has anyone seen a case where this was not sufficient and they needed to delete or disconnect the road to avoid routing?

[RallyChris]

Yes, when no valid alternative had been seen by the servers.

Probably ped trails, no entrance, all have the same penalty, so when routing has to play the "any way" possible game. It starts suggesting these.