Sure thing David. I do enjoy seeing that the closures are mirrored to Google Maps, so it reaches beyond Waze small (but devoted!) community here.
Now, I finally managed to have a good walk through the town centre. Who would’ve thought that it will take four full days…?
A quick question about Lloyd’s lane, though: While its north end is indeed blocked to traffic, there still are the old no entry signs on the south end of it - perhaps forgotten behind. So, I think it can be best described as a de-facto two-way dead-end street… What will be best in your opinion? Should it be blocked altogether (as per the official/“legal” point of view), or should it be left as it is now, probably best reflecting the situation on the ground? It all might be a more theoretical discussion than a technical, or even a needed one, as I doubt many, if any, vehicles are due to enter this tiny, narrow, half-blocked street in the upcoming weeks (before the works will probably advance further).
Anyway, thank you for all your assistance and guidance. I’m learning quite a bit here.
So is the north end of the lane physically blocked by a barrier or something, so that it’s not possible to drive into it, even if you ignore the signs?
If it’s physically blocked, then I’d disconnect the segment at that end, until the blockage is removed. That’s the only way we can stop users from ever being routed that way, no matter what: Waze can route somebody against a turn restriction if there’s absolutely no other way to get out of where they are.
I guess the businesses and houses on the lane do occasionally want to drive a car in there and maybe deliveries to the businesses need to get vans in there too.
So go ahead and make it two-way for now. If the north end gets reopened when the road works are over, then that’ll need to be reattached. Maybe it’ll go back to be one way then - so I guess we need to keep an eye on it to see what it ends up like when everything settles down.
Brilliant David, Sounds good. So, I left Lloyd’s Ln as a two-way street and disconnected its north end from its connection to R446 Church St. Also added a comment on the map in case this looks suspicious…
Brilliant. The map comment is a good idea - I forgot to mention that. I’m glad map comments exist now; it’s so confusing when you come across something weird and wonder if a previous editor was crazy or malicious
Can you check to see if there’s been any change in the road closures in the middle of Athlone? The closures on the Waze map expire in a few days. If there’s been no change then we can extend them for a couple more weeks.
I’ve just removed the closures, so the street should show as passable to all traffic with immediate effect (closures are immediate and don’t have to wait for a tile update.
A couple of questions though:
Right turns from Lloyd’s Lane onto R446 Church St are disabled - is this correct?
Some turns onto the narrow part of Strand St are disabled - is this correct?
The part of Strand St that you disconnected because of a total road closure: is this temporary or permanent? If it’s permanent, then disconnecting it is the right thing to do, but if it’s temporary, then we should handle this with a closure, both so that it expires and so that the closure is visible to users in the app.
Thanks again for the update - and all the updates over the past couple of months!
Yeah, that’s correct. Now that the closures are lifted, I’ve set R446 to one-way westbound.
Thanks for that David, I can’t remember a reason for these turns to be disabled. I enabled them. Will recheck tomorrow to make sure I didn’t miss anything.
It’s temporary but fully blocked (i.e. there’s no way for any vehicle to go from that part of Strand St to R446 Church St) - as was the case with Lloyd’s Ln a few weeks ago.
What would you recommend? You advised that it’s better for it to be disconnected to make sure Waze won’t route a user through it, despite disabled turns/closures etc.
Good question. Yeah, I meant that it should be disconnected if it’s permanently closed (that’s what we’d do if, for example, there were permanent barriers or fixed bollards in the way).
Waze cannot ever route across a disconnected junction, and should never route across a closure, but might route across a turn restriction if there’s really no other way to get a user out of somewhere.
I think in this situation (because it’s temporary) it’s better to connect it but then to put a closure in place. The reason for this is so that then users will see the segment in bright stripes, so it’ll be obvious to them that it’s closed. If it’s just disconnected then they might not be able to see unless they look very closely.
I took the liberty of reconnecting it. We can’t add a closure until the next tile update (because you can only add a closure to a segment that’s already on the live map) but I’ll add a closure then.
One question though: if this segment is closed, how do people with houses/businesses get onto it? Do they have to stop somewhere else and walk the rest of the way? I notice in SV there’s a hotel and a couple of restaurants here.
Just so we’re both talking about the same segment: it’s this one, right?
One final question: there’s a straight-ahead turn restriction from the segment we’re talking about at the junction with Lloyd’s lane, so the only way traffic can get out is by turning left onto Lloyd’s Lane. Is this correct? I guess it doesn’t matter too much if we’re about to put a closure on the west-most segment of Strand St, but it does seem a little odd.
Anyway, if I don’t write an update shortly after the next tile update saying that I’ve put a closure on this segment, will you let me know?
Thank you so much for the thorough explanation and discussion. I appreciate it a lot, as it will help me to understand the workarounds of Waze (and especially editing) much better.
Now, while it is the right segment, the blocked part of it is only its northern tip, actually for 10 metres or so. To be more clear on this, the closure is in place only to facilitate for works on the part of the junction in which R446 and Strand St are connected (with no actual works in Strand St). So people and businesses on this part of Strand St can reach it by driving through it as it was before - only when leaving, they will have to go back through Strand St to Lloyd’s Ln (which now has all the usual “diverted traffic” signs).
Therefore, I wonder if this long segment should be split to two, let’s say one will be only the tiny curve right before the junction - and that’s the one that should have a closure applied to? Anyway, it should probably have a u-turn allowed on the north end.
I’ll need to have a look at it later as I’m not too sure. Seems a bit odd indeed. If I do remember correctly, in the previous step of the works this part may have been designated as one-way, but I need to see if it’s still that way.
Sure thing. When can I expect the next tile update?
Good idea. I’ve split it in two, so when the time comes, we can just put a closure on the short part that’s physically closed.
Usually after just a day or two - see https://status.waze.com/ - although tomorrow’s update (if there is one) might just include edits up to this morning, so we might need to wait until the next one.
OK - there was a recent tile update and all edits up to yesterday (2018-10-14) morning at 0800 are live. I’ve put a closure on that segment that expires at the end of 31 October.
Can you keep an eye on that bit of Strand Rd and let me know when it’s open again?
No changes as of last night. I think an extension of the end date will be good as I’ll be away for a week or so, and on the other hand, I doubt if much work will be done around the long weekend…
So, maybe you can set the expiry date to 2018-11-08 or something like that? I should be back in town on the 5th.
Hi Guys,
Just came back from sunny Spain to foggy (but still lovely!) Athlone.
The roadworks advanced a bit once more, and there are some changes in traffic patterns (quite similar to those that were in effect a good few weeks ago):
