Historic Data

[AlanOfTheBerg]

When I tell it to show me the optional routes, it shows 3 additional routes, all of which are variations on Route A. All of which show best-case commute times, not current actuals or historical times.

That's disappointing, but if Waze, for whatever reason, thinks those are the fastest, that makes mathematical sense. But the question remains, "Why doesn't Waze take into account the historical/known data which shows that route is actually slower than others?" such as your Route B.

You've got a lot of good info in this thread. It may be worth opening a ticket to see if you can get a direct response. Use the Quick Help box on the Support page, enter a "subject line" then click the Email link. Fill in the info, include some text and a link to this thread.

[sublimese]

Thank you for the suggestion, I will do so tomorrow after I attach a few screen shots of what Waze is showing me.

[chrysrobyn]

Now that the maps are up, I've looked at your preferred route. As you said, everything looks fine with the map.

My money is on the routing server not agreeing that 285 / Alameda Ave is a valid cross-town route. I think you'd have to upgrade it to a Major Highway in order to overcome that barrier, and I believe a 5 lane road (2 in each direction plus a turn lane) with traffic signals and bus stops is already charitably considered a Minor Highway in an urban area. Depending on other factors in your area, perhaps your area managers would agree to upgrade it to Major Highway. I'm all for tuning the map to fit the routing server, as you can see.

Others, however, believe the routing server needs to better understand the map. In that event, e-mailing support is the correct route. Essentially I think you're asking them to get the routing server to consider minor highways for the 25-35 mile range -- I think you've demonstrated that because the Colfax exit is near that 25 mile limit (depending on where your actual destination is of course). I don't know how well they would take it if you were that specific, however. Perhaps pointing them at this thread would tell them what they need to know.

[bgodette]

My money is on the routing server not agreeing that 285 / Alameda Ave is a valid cross-town route.

No, not even close.

I think you'd have to upgrade it to a Major Highway in order to overcome that barrier

That would do nothing. Type only comes into play if there's a lack of historical data, which there isn't, or the route is very long (>200 miles before Major vs Minor starts to matter), which it isn't, and even then the distance tiers only increase the likelihood of the route getting pruned, it doesn't outright exclude Types.

The probable issue is one of actual distance vs straight line.

[chrysrobyn]

No, not even close.

Well, that's interesting. The last link shows the router would have considered his route if he lived a mile or so west.

I think you'd have to upgrade it to a Major Highway in order to overcome that barrier

That would do nothing. Type only comes into play if there's a lack of historical data, which there isn't, or the route is very long (>200 miles before Major vs Minor starts to matter), which it isn't, and even then the distance tiers only increase the likelihood of the route getting pruned, it doesn't outright exclude Types.

Thank you for explaining that! It doesn't explain some of what I thought I had observed, so I'll have to keep that in mind in the future when I'm trying to understand results I disagree with.

The probable issue is one of actual distance vs straight line.

If that's the case, is there a next course of action for the user or for his AMs?

[CBenson]

[Upgrading the road to Major Hwy] would do nothing.

We know there are penalties for each type of road.

So which of you is correct or are these statement actually not in conflict?

[bgodette]

If that's the case, is there a next course of action for the user or for his AMs?

Yes and no. We've managed to get Waze to increase the ratio at which is drops a route. In at least one distance tier it seems to be about 6:1.

My own commute in Denver is roughly this, barring accidents that happening along the route after starting, it has been accurate to +/- 2 minutes regardless of which side it decides to send me.

[bgodette]

[Upgrading the road to Major Hwy] would do nothing.

We know there are penalties for each type of road.

So which of you is correct or are these statement actually not in conflict?

Well mine are based on cleaned routes vs the NanoRep response and this route vs this route and this route vs the same route just a tiny bit further north along a 23km long unbroken segment.

That's the straight-line distance tiers at work, and it takes a bit to make it use predominately Freeway over a much shorter/faster Major/Minor mix.

[CBenson]

Well mine are based on cleaned routes vs the NanoRep response and this route vs this route and this route vs the same route just a tiny bit further north along a 23km long unbroken segment.

That's the straight-line distance tiers at work, and it takes a bit to make it use predominately Freeway over a much shorter/faster Major/Minor mix.

I agree that is the distance tiers at work. But does it follow that there is no effect on a shorter commuting route selection (say for routes less than 50 miles) if you switch a highway from minor to major?

[chrysrobyn]

If that's the case, is there a next course of action for the user or for his AMs?

Yes and no. We've managed to get Waze to increase the ratio at which is drops a route. In at least one distance tier it seems to be about 6:1.

Does this mean that Waze has already helped as much as they are going to? Do you think more data would help Waze evaluate Hampden Ave on its own merits instead of just seeing it as a Minor Highway? Looking at the GPS tracks (which I think I've read are rarely or just not recently updated), some segments of Hampden are very light on data. Is this user 20 days worth of data away from getting the route legitimized? Or is this case too far from Waze's target to show up?