I drove over this bridge a couple of days back. It has a width limit of 6 feet, enforced by some sturdy concrete pillars that you wouldn’t want to scrape your car on (although it looks as if some have). It also has a UR outstanding from someone whose car was too wide to fit through.
Is there a better way of mapping the area now?
In the future, I understand Waze propose to introduce the ability to set your app to say you are in a “private vehicle”, “truck” etc. We can already set restrictions for different vehicle types; currently Waze assumes “private vehicle”.
Am I the only person who feels that the present restriction categorisation is inadequate for UK purposes? I think that the “private vehicle”, “truck” etc categorisation is of little use for us (although “bus” and “taxi” are good). I think we need to be able to input height and weight restrictions for our roads, and ultimately to be able to specify the height and weight of our vehicle in the app. Only then will we able to control routing over the likes of this bridge correctly. Have any of our Champions taken this up with Waze?
It would be a shame to stop Waze using it altogether, it was a good route for me, getting me onto the M6 without passing through Lancaster in the rush hour (but I do have a narrow car).
Crikey that does look narrow! I like those sort of short cuts but wish there was another category other than street that could be used for narrow single track roads and those with width limits.
I frequently tow a horsebox (sorry I’m one of those who often has a long queue of frustrated drivers following) and have got into some pretty tight spots where we have gone down a road that has got progressively narrower with no opportunity to turn around, it gets to the stage where you have to decide if you should start backing up hoping to find somewhere where you might be able to do a 20 point turn or cross your fingers and carry on.
If Waze ever do implement the vehicle categories I hope the towing vehicle category is limited by width. Obviously horse trailers and caravans being towed by cars are not generally affected by weight limits and can get through smaller gaps than most busses and HGV’s, don’t know about the average caravan but our horsebox is 7ft 4in wide so won’t go through most width limits.
A thought crossed my mind that classing it as a Dirt Road would restrict it to the brave folk that have these enabled. Then again, the brave folk are probably driving huge 4x4s…
I have found that setting a restriction on a segment doesn’t necessarily help if you don’t also restrict the turn permissions for entry to that segment, so I would suggest restricting the turn permissions at the nodes at each end of the bridge, or even at the entrance to the segments leading up to the bridge.
No. I just assumed I’d missed something when restrictions was first explained. Next time I find an instance of Waze routing through a restriction, I’ll report it.
There are also 2 ton (probably 2 tonne these days) weight limits around in places. I’ve come across 2 in my time. At that time my car was over 2 tons, as probably are many of those mummy trucks these days.
Is this not a ‘look out the bloody window’ kind of issue?
I’ve thought about the restriction issue over here quite a lot as we have width restrictions, low bridges, weight, blah, blah, blah…
They are all navigable roads and until the client and the live/editable maps match there really is no point in adding the restrictions. Either stop all traffic or none…
Level 5 Area Manager - North of Ireland
Tapatalk on iPhone
Not really, since if Waze picks this route, you could travel for many miles before reaching the narrow bridge signs.
But I do agree that Waze doesn’t at present offer a sensible solution. My car goes through alright so I don’t care, but it would be better if we could automatically direct the Chelsea Tractors another way.
But if you are in the area, its one less thing to do if/when they do implement the changes.
Certainly if its that far out of the way, then its a no win situation, people will complain they were not routed through it just as much as being routed through it. At least if they are routed through it you can argue its up to them to read the road signs and behave appropriately and that waze does not know the size of their car.
Generally, I reckon that it’s better that we don’t route along unsuitable roads.
Most users will be blissfully oblivious about narrow bridges, etc. if Waze routes them ‘the long way’ and will be happy to get to their destination without incident. More so than being directed down a long road and having to turn around, or reverse their way out and find another route without Waze.
Any local users who do know about such shortcuts will choose to ignore the Waze route and press on regardless.
Basically, I’m saying it’s better to have a good route that is suitable for all road users even if it’s not the shortest, than a potentially bad route for the unlucky few in larger vehicles.
Surely the routing algorithm that prefers primary routes would mean that wouldn’t really happen unless people are actually going to somewhere close to the dodgy road?! Unless of course they are avoiding traffic jams reported by waze users. Which I’m pretty sure won’t be routed by those roads. I could be wrong though
Level 5 Area Manager - North of Ireland
Tapatalk on iPhone
From the amount of GPS arrows I get the impression that this is a well used shortcut so it would be a mistake to remove the segment across the bridge to prevent routing.
Waze is about getting from A to B but with the assumption that the driver will actually be paying attention to the road so lets keep it in use until someone reports that they or another user are wedged. They will be the ones that bang the desk of the local council office demanding some compo or that the road be closed. There is a warning sign at the A683 end stating that it is unsuitable for HGV’s too. I’m sure that the civil engineers would have added width restrictions too if it was deemed necessary.