This road is a dual carriageway, but is a single carriageway on Waze.
I’ll fix it, just need the segments downlocking. Ta.
There’s a lot to do here from roads built quite a long time ago (and I’ve travelled a lot on and never noticed!). Can someone remind me how we do this and not lose the data?
It confused the hell out of me yesterday, I wanted to overtake a dawdler and it took me half the length of the road to realise it was a dual carriageway (it was night and raining so difficult to tell)
Also see updated link with all the segments selected as they should be
And this bit is also dual but single on Waze!
Have you found the method to split them and retain data?
Aye, you have to join a temporary road to the middle of the existing segments to split them, then extend the two halves to reach the roundabout at the other end!
Never done it myself but if you think you can do it …
PS on chat now.
EDIT: asked for views to be brought here.
All I’ll ask is: What’s the routing problem the current road is causing, what’s the benefit of changing that?
Summary of case:
Reasons to dual:
- It’s a dual carriageway
- It meets the criteria to be dualled under the best editing practice
- It can be confusing to drivers if it’s mapped as a single carriageway (it was confusing to me last night and I’m a fairly experienced driver)
- If we’re to follow the best editing practice (as we should), then this road should be dualled just like the M25 and all motorways are.
Reasons not to dual:
- It doesn’t need to be dualled
- Drivers on one carriageway can’t report incidents or traffic on the other carriageway (surely this is a problem which should be fixed by waze as this goes for all motorways and dual carriageways)
And if that isn’t enough to convince you…
This wouldn’t be possible if the road were dualled. This is not possible in real life.
That is, unless you drive the wrong way up the southbound carriageway which may be dangerous.
Well half of the road is in my AM area (and other people’s AM areas too) so I’ve been invited to comment. I agree that it meets all the requirements for being mapped as dual carriageway, so personally I’m happy for the map to be updated.
As luck would have it, I drove along it last night and never noticed that it was mapped as single. :oops:
I’ve been mulling this over and I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d prefer to have this dualled despite my initial reservations.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
As soon as it’s unlocked I’ll get started in that case!
Happy enough but not at laptop.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
This road is in my AM area too but I don’t agree that it should be changed. As far as I can tell it there have been no complaints about how it routes and the fact that there’s been comments about driving along there without even noticing that it isn’t dualled just adds to that. I’ve driven up there several times and hadn’t noticed either although I don’t rely on Waze to tell me if I’m driving on a dual carriageway or not.
I’m all for keeping the map as simple as possible and I feel that it’s being changed simply for the sake of it because we’ve run out of things to usefully do in the South East. I don’t think we should mess with any major routes that route fine, which apparently it does. I don’t recall ever seeing any UR’s there.
I agree that if this road was being drawn from scratch it probably satisfies the best practice for dualling but I’m not sure that in itself is a good enough reason to go back and change main roads that are otherwise fine.
Let me refer you back to this image:
That is not routing fine.
The road is a dual carriageway, it should be mapped as such. As discussed, you could make the M25 route fine as a single carriageway too, but it’d be ridiculous to suggest it.
Looks like that’s since been fixed. Caused by a missing node in the layby.
There’s no reason not to dual it. It’s meant to be dualled and I’m willing to spend my time dualling it so I really can’t see the problem.
As far as I can tell the routing algorithm shouldn’t be offering a U-turn there anyway so I’m not convinced that specific example is proof that there is a problem with the road as drawn.
Anyway I’m still of the opinion that this is a “just for the sake of it” edit and major routes should be left alone but if the consensus is to change it then so be it - I’ve had my say.
Is adding House Numbers useful? I’m trying to spend a proportion of my editing time adding house numbers around my way. There’s plenty to do!
As for the Caterham Bypass, now I’m wavering. It’s true there have been no URs for ages along this bit of the A22, and that’s a good argument for leaving alone what isn’t broken. Oh dear!
Most of this road has previously been edited by dknight212 and iainhouse. I’d like to hear Iain’s take on this.
Since my opinion’s been asked for . . .
I don’t see any reason to split this section of road. I accept that, were it being drawn in for the first time, split would be quite acceptable. If it was already split I would advise against un-splitting it - for pretty much the same reason I advise against splitting it now - it’s needless editing that doesn’t particularly add value to the map.
Remember: the purpose of Waze is to be a a navigation application providing appropriate driving directions to drivers. It is not intended to be a precise model of the road. There have been times when I have been on a dual carriageway and realised I am unsure whether I am on a dual or not (mostly on the A66, very late at night :lol: ). But, every time that has happened, it has been due to my own in-attention to my driving. I would not expect my satnav to be responsible for telling me.
However I take bengley’s concern about the routing very seriously. Quite clearly, Waze is routing using a restricted u-turn. Now turn restrictions are not absolute - they only introduce a high penalty. If there is no other way to produce a route, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see a turn restriction being violated. In this case, there is a major roundabout a short distance to the south that could easily be used to produce a correct route.
I am very worried by the routing Bengley has highlighted - and I can reproduce it consistently with several different start & end segments. Waze should not be doing this under these circumstances.
I do not believe that this is due to the road not being split (although that would prevent it). I am coming to strongly suspect that HQ have made some changes to the routing algorithm - changes that are both unannounced and disastrous. I imagine all of you reading this are aware of the current roundabout problems. It also seems that the routing servers are producing more alternate routes that they used to. Yesterday, I was shown an route that travelled along a main road, with an alternate route along the same road that turned up a side-turning cul-de-sac and back down again for no reason whatsoever.
So, for now, I would advise waiting until we find out what is happening with the routing servers. If the bad routing turns out not to be related to the routing servers, then splitting will do no harm and will serve as good experience for a new editor.
P.S.
The extra node probably has nothing to do with it. It is very likely that trying to route out of the layby would fail without the node - as having 2 segments with the same start & end points confuses the routing servers. It is definitely true that not having that node will confuse the algorithm that draws the purple route lines for URs. Had a UR been left with a route passing this layby (and with no extra node), you might well see the purple route line pass through the layby without turn instructions - because the route given in the app didn’t go through the layby in the first place.
I would also like to pass a comment on the tone of this discussion, which seems to be getting a little harsh - one reason I have been keeping out of it. It’s good to discuss issues like this, in the open, where everyone can learn from them. But please try keep it on a good-natured level? 
Of course, if I’m mis-reading the situation, then feel free to flame me viciously. 