My Level: 2
Reason for request: Fix naming convention as per UR.
Thanks ituajr, i’ve invited the reporter DoTF to join the conversation if they wish to have the words ‘and’ removed.
Hi Guys,
This was the first time in my travels that I had seen ‘and’ used, so that was the primary trigger for the UR.
The first thought was, could we use an ampersand (&) in place of the word.
The next thought was where had I seen dual naming used on an exit, and that brought me to this segment https://www.waze.com/editor?env=row&lon=144.88288&lat=-37.68960&zoom=5&segments=79543079 Not cherry picking a segment, but this was the one that came to mind as I had been addressing UR’s in this area.
So from a style perspective, I guess my preference was for a cleaner looking display than what I saw in the app when I had the exit appear.
The nomenclature can stand if it is a big deal. It just looked strange with all the exits I’ve encountered and edited.
The idea to remove the name of the ramp would detract from the BGS exit info it was attempting to relay.
No issue with the exit being named, just the formatting/symbol selection. The wiki does say that a slash can be the substitute and with the goal to conserve “limited space for ramp names to display until they are cut off,” I think this edit would also respect that need.
Thanks for your time.
DoTF would you like to action edits or do you want me to?
I’m happy for you to work on this one.
If we remove the ‘and’ I will be happy. My personal style choice would be to use the ‘/’, rather than ‘&’.
When I have reviewed exits that provide lots of data, the use of ‘&’ or ‘and’ is generally used to split a 2 and 3rd option.
So, Exit 75: Terminal 1,2 & 3, because it would sound like Terminal 123 if said in succession.
“And” definitely has a place and a use, but here I don’t think it is needed. We can always change it later if it produces URs.
Thanks for co-ordinating this report.
Yeah, make them match and you can also remove the extra node. It does not help the map in any way being different.
Or you could just have the exit naming on a shorter segment closer to the named exit entry point, then blank the rest all the way to the forks which are named, like the other side.
We don’t need to have exit names extended over large bits of the road if they have lost their navigation value. Kinda like those exits up near Deagon we once looked at.