A UR appeared here. It seems the user was being directed to make a U-Turn. Although there isn’t actually a problem with that I certainly wouldn’t advise making U-Turns there knowing how busy it often is. Any ideas on how this could be stopped without affecting routing to and from the side roads?
Hi Matt
I’ve reduced the two connectors to be 14m long. I believe that, on a dual carriageway, if you have connectors between the carriageways longer than 15m, Waze will use u-turns if necessary. Below 15m, it won’t. So reducing them to 14m each should avoid this in future.
I think that’ll sort it.
Regards
Thanks John. I’ll test it in a few days (or whenever we next get a map update).
Looking at the street view images, both of those carriageway interconnects appear to be bidirectional, providing direct access to the opposite carriageway for side road traffic wanting to do a right turn onto the A34. I wonder if the UR was raised by someone joining the A34 from one of those side roads wanting to turn right, but due to the interconnects being marked as one-way against traffic leaving the side roads, was instead directed by Waze to turn left and then immediately U-turn at the adjacent interconnect?
Judging by the way the UR was written it suggested that the user was being instructed to turn after missing the junction before that.
As these are “T” junctions with the dual carriage way you can stop U-Turns by setting a turn restriction on each at the right turn from the link segment. If they were two way links you’d also set another from the right turn on the main carriageway that goes away from the side road. Sounds complicated so here’s an example:
Hope that helps!
Thanks for that. Those segments are actually two way so this helps for there.
If the right turn from Crabtree Road to the southbound A1 is still permitted in reality as it’s shown in the Streeview imagery (and in Google Maps routing results), then the turn restrictions for traffic heading east on Crabtree Road aren’t correct.
Oops, checked it with CTRL+Z … that’ll teach me!
It is now a better example! :oops: :oops: :oops: