I-95 / I-295 / I-495 routing issue

We’re getting Update Requests reporting a routing issue in the heavily traveled I-95 / I-295 / I-495 corridor in northern Delaware. This area includes an interchange for US-202 & SR-141 dropped right in the middle.

There is a blend of left and right ramps in this area, and we’re seeing an issue where I-495 S merges with I-95 S. The freeway is five lanes wide here, so I-495 actually splits to allow drivers following I-95 S to stay left while drivers exiting at Newport (US-202/SR-141) would want to stay right. Waze doesn’t recognize this, and it causes drivers to have to cross several lanes in a short distance to reach their exit (or to continue on I-95 S).

There are several edits I propose need to be made to solve this issue. First, this unnamed ramp segment needs to start much earlier, actually before the ramp “to I-95 S / Newark / Baltimore”. Also, I would propose that the ramp “Exit 5: SR-141 / Newport / New Castle” be connected to the unnamed ramp segment instead of connecting with I-95 S.

I can’t make any of these changes as I’m a Rank 4 and all these segments are locked at a Rank 5. Even if I could, this is one of the most important routing points in the northeastern United States so I would want to bounce this issue off everyone before making any changes.

Any thoughts?

I proposed something similar here:

https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=575&t=121596

I think at minimum the mainline road from 495 onto 95 has to be connected further down 95 passed the exit to 5 to prevent Waze from routing that way.

Actually, I think our proposals are virtually identical. Great minds, etc etc. I don’t know how I missed that discussion from December?

I concur with the plan to re-route the I-495 newport exit into the I-95 newport exit ramp.
It should reduce on the incidence of wazers being told to get onto 95 and cross 4 lanes of traffic to get to the I-95 newport exit ramp. It makes some kind of “spirit of the road” sense, even though it is not an accurate physical representation. Since Waze cannot represent the problem of crossing 4 lanes of traffic during rush hour, accurate physical representation of the reality at this interchange is not possible.

I say go for it. either one of you.

Here’s a recent UR:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-75.59163&lat=39.70947&layers=997&zoom=5&mapUpdateRequest=4066327

I’ve submitted an unlock request for this… Hopefully I’ve included all the required segments for this work.

https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=622&t=129647

@Mreiser4670 – I’d like to work with you on this if you have a certain time to be able to coordinate the effort. I can make pretty much anytime work except for tomorrow (Saturday) during the day – assuming the unlock is handled by then anyway! :slight_smile:

OK, I’ve made the change on this. I did not do the connection for the flyover ramp to the exit 5 ramp.

In the other thread, mishterhaz said…

I think this is a legitimate concern. In other words, as the user would come down that ramp, without that connection back to 95 it’d be a straight shot to the next junction which would be the split to 5A and 5B so they’d hear the interim warning like “In 1000 feet keep left” instead of “in 1000 feet exit right then keep left.” If they just hear a keep left on that stretch they could keep left too far over and end up back on the 95 mainline and miss the exit.

So I think that part should stay as is.