The problem I have with this crossroads proposal is that, at other types of junction, the instructions given now are consistent regardless of which route you take through it - i.e. regardless of the path you’re taking through a junction, or what restrictions there may be on you being able to follow it freely (give way/stop lines, traffic lights, oncoming traffic etc.), the app simply tells you which direction you need to go to follow that path. So you get the same “turn left” (say) instruction when turning off the main road into a side road as you do when turning out of the side road onto the main road, even though those two moves have differing priorities and requirements placed on the user in order to complete the turn safely/legally.
As such, at present users can be told, if they haven’t already figured it out for themselves, that the instructions Waze provides are there solely to indicate which direction they need to proceed at times when it might not be instantly obvious (as my old driving instructor used to say - “follow the road ahead unless I or the signs say otherwise”…), and should not also be used as a way of inferring anything else about the nature of the route they’re being asked to follow.
However, when we start talking about adding “go straight/continue/whatever the hell it translates into for any given version of the app/translation data” instructions to a crossroads, we’re only ever talking about doing so on the minor axis. As such, for any crossroads where we add this instruction override, not only would we then be introducing an inconsistency in how crossroads behave at the basic route instruction level depending on whether your path through them follows the major (no instruction) or minor (go straight instruction) axis, but we’re ALSO introducing an additional explicit indication of priority - get the instruction, give way, don’t get the instruction, proceed as-is… Except for crossroads where we haven’t felt it necessary to add the override, in which case users who’s drives take them through both types of crossroads will end up having an even more inconsistent experience as they find some crossroads giving them this instruction whilst others don’t, without it necessarily being obvious to them why that is.
Note also that, on approach to a crossroads, a user won’t necessarily know they’re approaching one - unless they’re paying attention to the onscreen map and can see the geometry of the junction, there’s nothing about the verbal/written instructions they’re getting to indicate this. As we also use “go straight” at other junctions for good reason, it wouldn’t then be possible for users to simply learn that whenever they hear a “go straight” it means FOR CERTAIN that they’re approaching a somewhat poorly signposted/reduced visibility crossroads at which they have to give way/stop, so either they won’t give this instruction the level of importance we’re hoping they will in these instances, or they’ll end up over-reacting if they hear the same instruction being given at other times, due to their being conditioned into believing it means “watch out!”
Which is why I’m deeply uncomfortable in trying to “hack” the current instructions into providing more information to users than they’re intended to provide.
