I’ve noticed an increase in the ways editors are handling gated communities - unfortunately it seems our wiki is lacking this section. I propose we amend it detailing how editors should go about adding them with regards to entrances and the likes. Please comment on my proposal below.
All internal roads are to be marked as “Private road”, the naming structure stays the same.
If residents have access through certain gates that the general public cannot access these roads are to be connected to the existing roads but turn restrictions are set to not allowed. Example HERE. Naturally main entrances are to have the appropriate turn restriction to allow routing through there only.
If residents have no access through old roads (i.e the road is still physically there but is barricaded) the road is to be disconnected and a U-turn allowed if appropriate. Example HERE
If roads are occasionally through roads (i.e. the general public has access through the gated communities but only during certain hours) time based turn restrictions are to be used. These will have to be verified on a case-by-case basis. Example HERE
The use of roads set to “unknown direction” are not to be used.
Limiting turn restrictions will likely incorrectly route residents but I believe this a small price to pay to correctly route other users. Your input is appreciated.
Thanks for bringing this up, I agree, we should standardize this and have it amended in the Wiki so that we can all follow the same standards for gated communities/boomed areas.
I agree on your proposal, it looks to me like the best way to handle it.
My only concern is on the turn restrictions, where residents have access through certain gates that the general public cannot access. Where these roads are connected to the existing roads with turn restrictions set to not allowed… Yes the incorrect routing will be a small price to pay, but i am concerned that Waze may start reporting errors when resident Waze users use the turn restricted roads. Waze editors will have to be aware of this, so they don’t switch the turn restrictions to allowed, in thinking it is a real map error. I wonder if there is a way of “flagging” these so that editors can immediately recognize the turn restrictions as a “resident only access road”.
In some cases, the limited-access area is quite large; in these cases, I’ve just been marking the entrance roads as “Private road”, and leaving the internal roads alone. Ihis results in the same thing for routing (Waze won’t attempt to route you through the area, but can still route you to somewhere in the area), but it’s a lot less error-prone. If you try to mark every road as private, but miss one or two, then routing within the area will get pretty weird.
I think I agree with everything else you said; the issue of incorrect routing for residents where resident-only roads exist is unfortunate, but I think we ultimately have to do what gives correct routing for the majority of people. That said, in cases where an area is only resident-access, I think it’s okay to simply mark the roads as Private Road rather than turn-restricting them; the problem comes in when both types of access (resident-only and public) are present.
You could try to test a Private-nonPrivate-Private triple-segment to double rise the penalty for residents-only entrances, in contrast to a single Private segment’s penalty for public entrances.
The residents-only entrances would be probably avoided for public routing inside/out of the Community area, (the resident could navigate through an intermediate stop point inside the gate’s triple-segment, to take the opportunity to be navigated through her preferred gate) and driving through anyway would not generate any error, like it would if there were any red arrows.
Agreed, I do feel that the colour highlights script set to private road largely negates this though. Higher level editors should probably have it installed and not make those types of mistakes.
Let’s give this a go and see what happens, ideally an editor who lives in a gated community with access through a boomed section. My thoughts are to try keep it as simple as possible for less confident editors, that’s why I figured the turn restrictions would work.
Hi, I would like to try it out in Lynnwood Manor, HERE
I live in this area and as it is a small area it is ideal to try it out here.
The main entrance is in Linfield Rd, HERE, where residents and visitors can enter and exit.
There is a residents only access gate, requiring a remote to open the gate, in Darlington Rd, HERE
There are two permanently closed gates, one in Charbury Rd, HERE and the other on at the northern end of Lindfield rd, HERE
But first I need help with both ends of Lindfield rd, HERE and HERE
I am unable to delete the unnecessary sections as highlighted in the permalinks. The error I get is “While you were editing, the elements you’re trying to save have been modified and/or deleted. Please refresh and try again.”
I have refreshed and cleared my browser cache, even tried a different browser, but cannot get rid of the error.
Can anyone please assist me with deleting those segments?
The errors are fixed, not sure who fixed it or if it went away form Waze updates, or what, but the problem segments are gone - Thanks.
Other than that, all roads in the area that I want to test are done according to the following suggestions:
At the Main Gate, where residents and visitors can enter and exit, a portion of the road at the main entrance gate is marked as “Private Rd”.
Gates or barricades on old roads where nobody can access through (i.e the road is still physically there but is barricaded) the road is disconnected and a U-turn allowed
Gates where only residents have access (i.e. the residents have remote controls to open these gates) and the general public cannot access, a Private-NonPrivate-Private triple-segment is added to double rise the penalty. (With this double penalty, Waze should avoid routing through these gates, and hopefully route visitors through the Single Private Segment at the main gate. When residents choose this route, Waze should not report any errors).
Internal roads are marked as “Street”, the naming structure stays the same.
Sorry guys, I’m a bit late to this convo so 2 things (actually 3):
#1. Thanks Kyle. I agree that we need an update or overhaul to the local Wiki to include the TBTRs and how to properly handle gated communities using a combo of time restrictions and private roads as required. In fact, a slightly larger Wiki overhaul & restructure might apply. #2. Is the rest just below afterthought no 3… #3. Any volunteers with some wiki-foo for the above ‘task’ ?
I unfortunately missed the offending segments. Were they locked at Level 6 or last updated by admin(6), or did they just not allow any updating ? We should have very few Level 6 locks or even admin(6) edited segments, and even if last edited by admin, anyone with an editor level/rank >= lock level should be able to edit them.
I have not seen local ‘road rankings’ or any info on whether it is getting applied yet, but the last couple of WME Color Highlight versions does show the ‘Segment Rank’ in the left tab below the average speeds. The road ranks if/when implemented, are supposed to automatically lock specific road types at specific levels based on the amount of traffic & the importance of the segment types, but like I said, I’ve not seen any evidence locally yet.
If they were ‘ghost segments’ they were likely affected by recent updates in the area like the toll flagging updates on the adjacent N1 or even the edits to Darlington on the 1st. The more recent suggestion from Waze support for fixing ghost segments are to do minor updates in the area which would force a tile update on the next map build, and then to check it again after a confirmed map update. Support is less likely to just delete offending segments for us nowadays, as the updates usually fixes them.
My assumption is that the ghost segment part is most likely relevant to what Igmar experienced.
Looking at the area and access to it, you can still type them all as ‘Private’ to prevent any external routing through the area between Darlington and Lindfield, but keep the Private<->Street<->Private penalty for non-residential access.
Anyhow, the entrances are probably live as-is at the moment so lets see what you experience in it’s current form. You might have to wait for the next update that include edits for today to get the full effect if the previous connections allowed free access.
I think you are right about the offending segments being ghosts. I already deleted those segments a few days earlier and then they re-appeared a day or two later. It seems that the updates solved the problem.
Regarding “Street” or “Private Rd” in boomed areas, I guess there are two different takes on that, both have it’s pro’s and con’s.
That is why I opted for marking the internal roads as “street”. In the small area I am testing, I guess it doesn’t really matter a lot, but I think it would be best to decide on a standard for internal roads if it is published in the Wiki, so there is no confusion.
I have some initial feedback on the the changes made in Lynnwood Manor, after testing for a few days:
It seems that the double penalty of the Private-Street-Private triple-segment does work for limiting the routing through the “residents only” gate, and ensuring routing through the main gate, but there is one exception…
When routing from Darlington Rd (inside or outside of the residents only gate), Here or Here, then Waze routes through the “residents only” gate. From all other roads which I tried, outside or inside the boomed area, Waze always routes through the “main gate”, Here, where there is only a single Private road section.
Can anyone tell me if the length of the private road sections at the “main gate” and the “residents only” gate could influence the routing? If I increase the total length of the two private road sections at the residents only gate, to be longer in length than the private road section at the “main gate”, would it increase the routing penalty at the “residents only” gate?
As far as I know the segment lengths would not affect the ‘extra’ applied penalty. The length will only factor if one route is much longer around in travel time than the next. The penalty is applied from the transition of specific types of road to another type.
The wiki indicates that private road->street or parking lot->street transitions would get an extra penalty applied.
If I test a route between these 2 segments, I get routed around to the normal gate, but if I route between these 2, the penalties are equal for both, so the shorter distance via the ‘tenants only’ gate seems to win. It seems like the ‘double’ penalty incurs too high a penalty value in this case. Testing routing it to other roads around the area from that small private road segment seems to give wonky routes, as none of them goes out the normal gate. Even if I route to very close to the gate with distances of ~1644m via Meiring Naude->Lynburn vs. ~1170m on Darlington->Charbury->Dorking->Lindfield. This is likely due to the higher average speed data for Meiring Naude & Lynburn vs the internal streets and especially the Lindfield private segment at the gate, which shows an average speed of a whopping 0 km/h for both directions, probably due to wait times at the gate. I think that single factor might remain a problem forever, unless no-one actually used Waze through there yet. I do not see any GPS tracks on any segments there, but the averages for most of the other roads seems populated ok.
You might want to check the option of defining the internal roads as ‘private’ and just have an extra private->street transition on the resident only access section in Darlington. This should reduce the overall penalty when all from here inwards are set as private.
Do all residents get the option of a remote control, or just some that are closer to the private gate ?
I understand, so the double penalty should be a higher penalty than the single private section at the main gate, regardless of the length - that answers the question, thanks. I may just consider making the double private sections longer, only in order to make them more visible in the Live map, understanding that it will not affect the penalty.
The Lindfield private segment was created recently, that is why it has 0 km/h average speed. This was related to the “ghost segments” we had there a week or two ago. The original segment there go deleted in the process of trying to sort out the ghost segments. I am sure that segment will build up a better average speed again over time.
Thanks, I will try that and see what the effect is.
I just want to comment on the routing with Waze client vs the Live map.
I checked that on the Live map and get the same results as you - routing through the main gate. However, if I use the Waze client, park on Darlington on this segment, and ask Waze to route to Meiring Naude or to the N1, then Waze takes me trough the tenant gate and not through the main gate as is the case with the Live Map. If i go just around the corner into Charbury, then the Waze client routes through the main gate. It seems that in practice, with the Waze client, the penalty of the first private segment (of the double private segments at the tenant gate) does not count if one is already on the segment bordering the first private segment. But in the Live Map that penalty does count.
All in all, it still seems to me that the double private segment at the ‘tenant only gate’ does what it is intended for, which is to route traffic through the main gate, while not reporting errors when residents drive through the ‘tenant only gate’.
The only exception seem to be routing from the segment directly bordering the ‘tenant only gate’ (and only in Waze client, not in the Live Map). Adding another street segment to “mask” off the bordering segments may be a solution, but it may start to be a bit cluttered as we will then have 5 segments at the ‘tenant only gate’… I will test this anyway, just to see if it works. Will also test it in combination with the bordering segment as private, as you suggested, making internal roads private. I will try a few combinations here and see what happens. This testing may take some time as I have to wait for Waze updates, and test it on the client, because of the fact that the Waze client and Live map does it differently.
All the residents have the option of a remote control. It is much quicker to use the “tenant only” gate for residents getting onto the N1 South, because you can get onto Meiring Naude then N1, and avoid peak time traffic in Lynburn.
My response will possibly be somewhat similar to Kuhlkatz’s…
Igmar, I was not able to reproduce this (and it also should not be possible). Any route between these two segments should pass the main visitors gate.
Working as designed. You can travel through both gates without the system raising any “unallowed turn” error, and any inwards/outwards navigation will go through the main visitors’ gate - except if making a stop point inside the residents only gate segment.
No. The segment lengths, equivalent to Private->nonPrivate transition penalty, should be possibly in range of hours of travel time (more more exact penalty values are possibly to be found somewhere).
[edit] If all roads of the Lynnwood Manor road system are to be equivalently accessible (through the main gate) (are they?), I suspect there is not much more you can do to the residents’ gate definition. Just that it has a bit higher penalty than the public gates. (Actually discarding the main gate’s Private segment and shrinking the residents’ gate to one Private segment would technically do exactly the same. As would completely setting the whole Manor area to Private segments and adding one short Street segment to the residents’ gate. I just consider using one and two Private segments for gates to be more logical.)
[edit2] I’ve missed you post, which responds to my question regarding the (client) routing through residents gate. Sorry and thanks.
If you drive westward on the Darlington segment indicated and then use the client, it takes your last direction of travel into consideration. At that point it will determine that you have no other option but to route through the residents-only section despite the higher penalty, since you have no valid u-turn point or other ‘escape’.
The Livemap routing or Timbones’ WME Route Tester merely asks a route from point A to point B with no previous direction of travel brought into the equation.
Just as an FYI, this is the normal client behaviour : When you arrive at a destination and switch off the client, your direction of arrival is stored. Next time the client starts up, it will attempt to route you out in the same direction you originally arrived in, even if it’s not the shortest route. This behaviour is somewhat nonsensical and tends to drive most people nuts. Include me in that category as Waze would always try to recalc my route with the network still in limbo between deciding if I’m actually still on Wi-Fi or on 3G.
As foxitrot stated, the short is that no MPs would be generated if you or other tenants do drive in and out via the tenants gate, but the routing for a non-tenant should force them through the main gate as it stands, so will work for the bulk of the people NOT familiar with the area.
If I navigate to Charbury on my client, I get a route via the main gate & if I add one of the short stubs (not sure which one I was able to tag) as a “Stop Point”, I go via the tenants only gate. This method was suggested elsewhere in the forum for tenants that always want a route via a non-public entrance that should not be permanently disconnected.
The same holds true if I set Charbury as a start point & navigate somewhere, and then add my “Stop Point” - I get a route out via the tenants gate.
I checked this a few times on the Waze client during the last few days, but i guess it is possible that the updates has not yet reached my client or something like that, so I will check a few more times in the next few days to make sure about it.
Yes, once anyone enters the area at the main gate all the roads inside the area are equally accessible.
Thanks, yes that makes sense, that the 3 different options described above would all technically do the same.
I also agree with the use of the ‘Two Private Segments’ vs the other two methods, as it is clearly visible and more logical, and is more visible to all editors than the other two methods.
My comments on the other two methods:
“Discarding the main gate’s Private segment and shrinking the residents’ gate to one Private segment”…
With this method I would be concerned that editors will add a private segment at a ‘main gate’, where it was intentionally left out.
This method will rely on all internal roads to be set to ‘street’ to work effectively (correct me if I am wrong on that).
“Setting the whole area to Private segments and adding one short Street segment to the residents’ gate”…
With this method editors might see the ‘short street segment’ at the ‘resident only gate’ as a mistake and delete it.
This method relies on all the internal roads to be set to ‘private’.
The method of having ‘Two Private Segments’ at ‘residents only gates’ and ‘One Private Segment’ at main gates/visitors access gates is a lot less prone to be misunderstood by editors, compared to the other two methods, and as foxitrot rightly suggested, it is more logical.
I also think the method of having ‘Two Private Segments’ at ‘residents only gates’ and ‘One Private Segment’ at main gates/visitors access gates is more robust as it will work with internal roads set to ‘street’ and to ‘private’.
Although this method is designed to work with internal roads set to ‘street’ it will still work if someone decides to change all internal roads to ‘private’ as it will then effectively operate in the same fashion as method 2) “Setting the whole area to Private segments and adding one short Street segment to the residents’ gate”, whereas the internal roads in the other two methods cannot work both ways.
One more thought:
One can now clearly see the importance of making all the internal roads in a boomed area either ‘private’ or ‘street’, depending on the method used, but not using both types in an area, as that would add penalties on some internal roads, and may cause routing through the wrong gates. I am sure this is already obvious to the more experienced editors in the forum, but I thought it is worth mentioning it again for any new users who might read this thread in future.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Yes it all makes sense now as I was indeed driving West on Darlington inside the area when Waze routed me through the ‘tennant only gate’, and vice versa driving East from the Darlington segment outside the gate, when Waze routed my entrance through this gate.
I agree then, this method will work for the bulk of the people NOT familiar with the area, while not reporting errors for residents.
With all the info gathered then, I will leave it as is. The only small change I will make is to increase the length of the “Private-Street-Private” sections at the resident only gate, only to make it more Visible on the client and the Live Map.
So… Are we all in agreement that the way to handle gated communities is to set internal roads as normal streets with a private-street-private at the residents gates? No unknown street directions, correct (allowed) turn restrictions at said gates.
