My Level: 3
Reason for request: shorten ramp
Looks like you’re asking to shorten the cloverleaf onramp from westbound W El Camino onto I-5 S. Is that correct?
Can you clarify what impact you’re concerned the long onramp segment will have on drivers? Is this only a cosmetic change? I have spent a few minutes looking at this and am not seeing that I can make any detectable improvement except possibly to make it slightly more pleasing to the eye in WME.
Cosmetic / standards adherence, that’s all (especially since it’s going over El Camino).
While we’re here:
1 ramp north–
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.51519&lat=38.62111&layers=293&zoom=7&segments=5923306
Can we contemplate un-naming the first ramp, and changing the subsequent ramps to:
“Exit 522: I-80 W / San Francisco”
“Exit 522: I-80 E / Reno”
OK, I aligned it as best I could with the guidance and example image in the Interchange Style Guide. I also added the control city to the companion onramp for I-5 S for traffic coming the other way on El Camino.
A senior editor I respect has suggested to me that Waze should rarely offer the Exit number twice. I know I have done this in another example we worked on, but in that case there was a solid white line strongly encouraging drivers to commit before they had even left the freeway. In that situation the need for inheritance to provide early guidance was much stronger.
Here, drivers are free to change lanes up until the last moment, so that is not as strong a concern. Also, the early BGS advertising this exit is simple and quick for Jane to say (Exit 522: I-80 / San Francisco / Reno), so that’s not as strong a concern either.
If it weren’t for Waze saying the Exit number twice, I would not disagree with your suggestion. It is a departure from past practice, but I admit to enjoying inheritance giving me advance warning of just which way I’m supposed to go, even in non-edge cases.
But I have to agree with the senior editor who advised me that drivers could perceive the Exit number getting repeated as confusing or just plain wrong. So unless there are other compelling factors here I’m inclined to leave it as is.
We can leave as-is. I was just going off of this, hoping that there could be improvements to be made:
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Style_Guide/Interchanges#Ramp_fork_naming
In the example you linked, the subsequent fork serves two different exit numbers (70A and 70B). So the inherited guidance will clarify whether one is taking Exit 70A or 70B from the time one leaves the freeway on the joint 70A/70B offramp.
The situation here is that there is only one exit, Exit 522. Once one takes Exit 522 the ramps fork, but at that point, whether one goes west to SF or east to Reno, one has already taken Exit 522. Technically you can only take Exit 522 once, and that was when you took the initial offramp.
The guidance I was given is that drivers will be confused if they take, for example, Exit 522, and then are told to take Exit 522 again a second time. This is not the same situation as being guided off the freeway towards Exit 70A and then a short time later being guided onto Exit 70A.
Do you see the difference here? In one case the Exit refers to one’s departure from the freeway, and once you’ve departed the freeway, you can’t take that exit again. In the other case the exit has an identifier that ties it to a particular fork after leaving the freeway, in which case you are guided towards it and then you take it.
At least, that’s how I’m seeing this question.