Alternative Junction Naming Scheme for UK

[TonyG-UK]

I think we should stick with J24 format. We can ask that the TTS acknowledge this as a junction number.

I also think we're dismissing the usefulness of the reports a little too easily. Ironically if you have a route defined in the app then the navigation instructions become less important in my opinion

I agree with Darren here.

The information falls into the following categories for motorways AFAICS (and feel free to correct this) - using off ramp data for this example:

Current Road - M4
Direction - (N)
Junction - J47
Next road - A642 : A656 : B1217
Signed to - A642 Garforth, (A1) The SOUTH
Ramp direction - Exit, Entry

I see each of these used as follows:
Navigation: Next road, Signed to
TTS: Ramp direction, Junction
Reports: Current Road, Direction, Junction, Ramp Direction

Nav and Reports are disconnected sets, which is probably the route (pun) of the problem.

There is a lot of information here, and I don't think there is an ideal solution when we only have one database field to play with - ideally it would be better to have two fields, one for nav and one for reports.

So, for off ramps, something along the lines of one of these:
Exit M1 (N) J47: A642 A656
Exit M1 (N) J47 to A642 A656
Exit M1 (N) J47 to Garforth, The SOUTH
Exit M1 (N) J47 to A642 - Garforth and The SOUTH

For on ramps (I also don't like putting Entry in here, but am lacking another option)
Entry M1 (N) J47: Wetherby

This assumes that the TTS can be updated to recognise "J" as Junction.

[TonyG-UK]

Entry M1 (N) J47: Wetherby

The problem with this is that in the reports it's going to look like it's at Wtherby, when it isn't.

The solution would be for reports to not contain anything after the ":". This would then go some way to solve the need to have different information for nav and reports.

Darren, do you think that this would float with WazeHQ?

[dmcconachie]

I think I'll get them involved in this because I think it needs a fundamental shift, ideally separate names for navigation and reports. I like your modular idea!

[Timbones]

Nav and Reports are disconnected sets, which is probably the route (pun) of the problem.

There is a lot of information here, and I don't think there is an ideal solution when we only have one database field to play with - ideally it would be better to have two fields, one for nav and one for reports.

This was why I was trying to shift the location information into the city field, as it's only needed and used for traffic reports. Yes, it's a dirty hack, but I still think it has some advantages. Ramp names are primarily used for navigation, so it makes sense (to me) to streamline them for that purpose.

My personal preference is still pretty much what I originally wrote, perhaps with a few tweaks for TTS.
If "Jct" was added to TTS as an expanded word, I think that'll be better instead of 'Exit'.

[dknight212]

If you're going to have Waze parse the road name, why not just use a pipe character to separate out the navigation from report text eg J15:M4|M25 J15 exit?

David, using Tapatalk

[Timbones]

Great discussion so far - anyone else got something to add?

Much of the consideration so far has been for motorways, but I'd like to see an improvement to the GSJs on A-roads too. The wiki suggests ramps should be named like "A64 (W) Exit" and "A64 (W) Entry", which I think is completely useless for anything. I'm much rather see "to A19 - York, Selby" and "to A64 (W)" on the navigation.

Traffic reports can use the city name from the junction (if present), or the nearest town.

[Dave2084]

I'm still waiting for the A42/M42 changes to hit the live map, they map have been there this morning but the routing server was being a PITA.

[faitaru]

Right. Took way too long to reply to this.

First off, despite being name checked in the OP by Tim, I 100% do not support the use of the city field for road junctions. Yes, it was my idea. It is however a crap idea. It looks stupid on the client and I have issues with using a field for an unintended purpose like that.

Moving on... I have no problem with the current junction naming scheme. It's not perfect, but it was the result of a fairly lengthy discussion back whenever. I can appreciate that it's not always ideal for dual carriageways, but for motorways I feel that it works perfectly fine.

I was gonna multi-quote a bunch of stuff from various posts, but I can't be bothered, so I'll just list points as I think of them.

Using US naming guidelines:
Completely wrong for the UK. The problem is this: in the US a freeway/interstate exit is for a SINGLE road. If there are 2 roads, there are 2 exits. In that case naming an exit as "to Whatever" is fine because you immediately know which road it is. In the UK most motorway exits are for multiple roads. I would think a good 60-70% of them have roundabouts which serve anywhere between 1 and 6 different roads. Naming an exit slip with the road it leads to can only work if it leads to a single road. If it leads to more than 1, then you've either got to list them ALL, or make some stupid decision based off [what?] to decide which road you think is most important or which road you think any given wazer is likely to take? That doesn't sit with me. It's pointless anyway, since as soon as you hit the slip road you're given the next instruction for the approaching roundabout/junction which lists the road number you want to take.

A1(M) J46:
What you've done here Tim, is suddenly created different naming schemes for on and off slips. You've also got a lot of redundant info in there for traffic reports now. This is one of the problems with using the city field. Yes it doesn't appear in nav, so you don't get redundant info there, but in all traffic reports you're going to get "A1(M)" and "J46" appearing twice. No need for it. Also north and south labelling has been agreed on for a heck of a long time. There should be no situation where we resort to spelling them out instead of using (N) and (S). Waze have been adding new abbreviations for TTS in the US, so I expect they will do the same here. I'd also like to see J46 remaining as J46 for this reason, rather than any sort of expansion to Junc46 or Jnct46 or Junction46.

"to":
Any road named "to Somewhere" looks horrible to me and naming in this way should not occur in my opinion. Replacing "to" with a colon in the middle of a slip name I would find acceptable, although I would not push for that change.

(CW) and (ACW):
Obviously the M25 and M60 are exceptions for the normal road direction naming convention. However I think there is some confusion over the signage that has been discussed here already. Around the M60, there are signs which say things like "M60 (N & E)". The "(N & E)" on these signs is nothing to do with the direction of the road. It is signing you to the fact that you will hit the north and east sections of the M60 by going that way. It works in much the same way as a sign that might say "London (W)". You are not heading west, you are heading to west London. (CW) and (ACW) can be added to the TTS by waze.

Dual carriageway junctions:
In the original discussion on junction naming last year, it was suggested that on A and B dual carriageways, if there was not a junction number present, then other info could be added to make identifying the junction easier. E.g. "A40 (W) Polish War Memorial Exit" or "A1 (N) Exit to A14". I guess this was never copied over to the wiki, which is why in most cases it has not been adopted.

The exciting quote section:

I think the current format is very confusing.

In what way? How is "M1 (N) J10 Exit" confusing?

"Medium traffic on M62 (W) between M62 J31 and M62 J32"

In reality this would never happen. The only times you would see this would be if you had 2 junctions VERY close together with no other towns/cities nearby. The best you could hope for in traffic reports is "Medium traffic on M62 (W) near M62 J31" or "Medium traffic on M62 (W) in the neighbourhood of M62 J31".

tl;dr
In conclusion, I like the current naming scheme and don't see a reason to change it unless a better alternative can be produced. In my opinion, the city field is not a better alternative. I also don't think copying the US directly is a better alternative.

[dmcconachie]

Nice riposte, Bain. I think I agree with all of your points!

[Timbones]

Just to because I'm a pedantic bugger, I'm going to pick some holes in your reply. Nothing personal.

Using US naming guidelines:
Completely wrong for the UK. The problem is this: in the US a freeway/interstate exit is for a SINGLE road. If there are 2 roads, there are 2 exits. In that case naming an exit as "to Whatever" is fine because you immediately know which road it is.

OK, fair point; for navigation. However, they really don't seem bothered by the lack of information for traffic reports. This one point bugs me every time I think about it. Why do we Brits feel we need to have so much info for exits and on-ramps? A question for our friends across the pond, perhaps? That would satisfy the traffic reports, yes no?

Naming an exit slip with the road it leads to can only work if it leads to a single road. If it leads to more than 1, then you've either got to list them ALL, or make some stupid decision based off [what?] to decide which road you think is most important or which road you think any given wazer is likely to take?

I disagree. The driver only needs to know the most major one or two road names so he can be confident that he has the correct junction. Remember, junction numbers are small...

Also north and south labelling has been agreed on for a heck of a long time. There should be no situation where we resort to spelling them out instead of using (N) and (S).

Yeah, fine - I was just experimenting.

Dual carriageway junctions:
In the original discussion on junction naming last year, it was suggested that on A and B dual carriageways, if there was not a junction number present, then other info could be added to make identifying the junction easier. E.g. "A40 (W) Polish War Memorial Exit" or "A1 (N) Exit to A14". I guess this was never copied over to the wiki, which is why in most cases it has not been adopted.

If this could be added to the Wiki, that would be better than nothing.

In conclusion, I like the current naming scheme and don't see a reason to change it unless a better alternative can be produced. In my opinion, the city field is not a better alternative. I also don't think copying the US directly is a better alternative.

Okay, so it looks like my ideas have been shot to pieces. I concede that using the city name is just not going to stick. I'm not ready to give up on the ramp names though...

So, how about these?

• Motorways - "Exit: J44 to A64"
• Dual-Carriageways - "Exit to A19 - Selby"
• On Ramps: "Entry to A64 (W)"

Why? I think that if we start ramp names with the word "Exit" we'll get "exit left" instructions instead of "keep left". The only downside is that you have to loose the current road name (which is unnecessary for navigation). Could always add "from M1" on the end maybe?

Example: "Exit: J44 to A64 from A1 (N)" would be displayed/read by the client as "Exit left at J44 to A64 from A1 (N)"