There is a bit of difference between the criteria set by the Global Wiki and the Australian Wiki when it comes to divided roads. This might just be a way to simplify the criteria.
Is that section meant to be interpreted as (a) if there are multiple houses on a street which have a median strip blocking traffic from turning across the street, then it can be mapped as divided? Otherwise is it saying (b) even if it meets (a), it shouldn’t be divided if the median is under 5m (and so on)?
If it just went off (a), then this road meets the dividing criteria, however. if (b) is how it is mean to be interpreted, it shouldn’t be divided.
When this criteria is used, the previously mentioned road should not be divided. It also means that this road should not be divided as the physical divider is under 6m wide.
Wouldn’t there be a chance that drivers would be told that they have reached their destination if they are on the wrong side of the median strip? I live on the right hand side of my street if I head along it as directed, and I am told that I have reached my destination when I’m on the opposite side of the road instead of being directed so that I am on the same side of the road as my house.
Does the Australian wiki need to be amended to match the criteria set in the global wiki?
Regarding the first example you gave, I’d argue that it doesn’t meet the original criteria for dividing at all - the criterion in the Global rules that says “… are not accessible from the opposite direction of travel due to lengthy median, obstruction, or traffic control signage…” is not satisfied because the median/obstruction is not lengthy; drivers don’t have to go that far to turn back onto the relevant side of the road.
That doesn’t address your more fundamental question about differences in the guidance though. I’m not entirely sure what the last point in the global guidance is actually supposed to mean. But I suspect that if the reservation area was much smaller than 15m, then most of the time there wouldn’t be a visual gap between the GPS traces so it becomes a shorthand way of quickly ruling a road out as a candidate before dividing.
(Also, differences in road design conventions, traffic and population density could explain/justify a difference between US/Global standards and AU ones.)
Re the second example you posted, I’m guessing that that part was divided so that the mapped and commented U-turn areas work correctly?
Let’s also remember what Waze is/isn’t intended to do. It’s to let me find/navigate to a location, avoiding traffic along the way. If it enables me to find my destination but I’m on the “wrong” side of the road, but I find my own way to the right side of the road using my eyes, brain and simple maneuvers then it has done its job. Waze is not an excuse for drivers to stop using their brain power.
I think that you have just helped clear up my issue about whether the Global wiki was saying that roads could be split if they matched any of the first criteria and as long as none of the second criteria are met.
The second example was already mapped like that and the commented areas were a way to get u-turn instructions rather than a double right instruction.
In terms of the 15m, this road doesn’t match the 15m criteria when it comes to the width of the physical dividing median (8.8m) or the width between inside painted edge lines (13.1m). It does however match the 15m criteria if a measurement is taken between the middle of the inside lane on either side of the median strip (16.5m)
Sorry, was going to respond to this a while ago and forgot until the other thread reminded me.
That seems to be an unrepresentative sample, because it appears to be an area where reception is limited. On the majority of roads where a decision is needed on whether to divide or not, the GPS tracks are much better defined.
That said, I agree that
Although any rule we formulate will always hit some edge cases - like several other things in Waze editing, we need to apply some judgement/sense/experience. Or discussion, if the answer is still unclear.
