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:
dknight212 wrote:I think the current format is very confusing.
In what way? How is "M1 (N) J10 Exit" confusing?
Timbones wrote:"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.