*UPDATED* Ramp naming convention proposal

[R4CLucky14]

I don't see any reason to drop the "to" in the onramps. It's not spoken in TTS (which would sound awkward) and it's accurate if you read the display because you're on a ramp "to X-##". The name doesn't display on the map if the segment is a Ramp type.

Dropping the "to" will still screw up Select Entire Road if there's no control city.

I suggested dropping the entire name, not the "to", if there was no control city. The TTS would be exactly the same.

[jasonh300]

The problem with having unnamed segments where traffic actually flows is you get really strange automatically generated reports.

[AlanOfTheBerg]

The problem with having unnamed segments where traffic actually flows is you get really strange automatically generated reports.

True, but also no less "strange" than having multiple morning reports on all 12 on-ramps to the same highway. When Waze changes the alerts to be useful, such as the using the parent street in the information for on-ramps, that will be nice. "Heavy traffic on US-9 on-ramp from 15th St." is sooo much more friendly and helpful than "Heavy traffic reported on to US-9."

[sketch]

Another problem, though, is that some interchanges undoubtedly exist that are too complex for the first ramp in the series to be left unnamed.

[R4CLucky14]

Another problem, though, is that some interchanges undoubtedly exist that are too complex for the first ramp in the series to be left unnamed.

These normally have control cities, and, thus, would be named...

[sketch]

Not always, though. There is an alarming number of entrances with no control cities in the city of New Orleans.

[gettingthere]

Unfortunately, as with many of these types of proposals - I don't see this going anywhere.

We need to come up with a better process to present a proposal that affects editing standards, some type of formal voting process, and a deadline. Weeks and months of opinions...

[banished]

Unfortunately, as with many of these types of proposals - I don't see this going anywhere.

We need to come up with a better process to present a proposal that affects editing standards, some type of formal voting process, and a deadline. Weeks and months of opinions...

Roger that. 'Course then we can have votes on the wording of the proposals as a lead-in to the vote on the proposal, which if approved, Waze can decide to not implement.

[jasonh300]

Well, yeah. There will be 30 different options, and each will get one vote.

Otherwise, you've hit the nail on the head...all but the last part. Waze already told us that they aren't going to get involved...that it's entirely up to us to decide how to handle this sort of thing.

[R4CLucky14]

I say we go with the double colon. I'm convinced.

{SIGN}={[EXIT]<SEPERATOR 1>[SHIELDS]<SEPARATOR 1>[CITIES]}

[SHIELDS]=[<SHIELD><SEPARATOR 2><SHIELD>……]

[CITIES]=[<CITY><SEPARATOR 2><CITY>……]

<SEPERATOR 1> = ":"
<SEPARATOR 2> = "/"

Thats how I came to this conclusion.