The differences between the pages can be found here.
Any input would be welcome. Since it’s been so long that the page was updated I think a discussion for national guidance would be great. The draft is really just a jumping off point for the discussion.
There is one section that I didn’t finish because I couldn’t find a correctly mapped intersection in my limited search. Feedback there would be very helpful.
The section: Steep angles with exits and keep right or left
There is a lot going on there. I think it would be really valuable to have a suitably detailed image that shows where all those nodes that are being discussed, the angles and the distances. For people learning, I think a pictorial representation of this may help with the overall understanding.
Two topics that would be great to add based on frequent editor confusion:
Median segments where the road does not change names should be named. It is the corollary to the statement “…if the cross street changes names at the junction, make sure that the median segment(s) have no name”, however it is a frequent topic of editor confusion and would be helpful to be said explicitly.
Where should editors seek guidance on turn vs. exit instructions for skewed angles on mH+.
As it hasn’t been a year yet since that was changed I do see some value in keeping it in there as an FYI. If there is a consensus to remove it I’m fine with that too.
It’s really just the same text as the exit geometry section which has no tutorial. I’m not opposed to the idea at the same time I need to be realistic on the scope I take on. If you want to put an image together that would be helpful.
Done
are you looking for a line like?- “Consult your regional leadership if you have questions which instruction may be most appropriate.” Really this can be intersection and specific certain regions may handle these differently so it may be problematic to put specific guidance.
Thank you for taking on this page. It has needed an update for a while. Below are my recommendations.
Under Steep angles with exits and keep right or left, in bullet 3, it says, “Next, ensure that the last geometry handle before the node is at least 40 feet ahead of the node,” I would replace ahead with before there. It keeps the language consistent.
Under Bow tie, replace “It was necessary before the introduction of the junction box and the 3-segment U-turn prevention mechanism, but…” with “It was necessary for controlling turns and accurately reflecting traffic queuing before the introduction of the junction box, but…”
Under Bow tie, combine the second and third bullets. to say, “To prevent U-turns at intersections use a junction box.”
When it comes to the historic u-turn routing prevention, I don’t believe we need to continue to include an explanation of how it worked. I think the Avoiding U-turns in box and partial box intersections section can be updated as below and the second heading and text removed.
“Prior to December 2021 the Waze routing algorithm penalized some double-left turns through a u-turn prevention mechanism. Since December 2021, this algorithm has been disabled in the United States. The routing server will no longer automatically avoid double-left turns. To prevent u-turns on divided roads, use a Junction box. You may encounter intersections that appear pinched with a median segment that is shorter than reality. This was likely mapped prior to December 2021 to prevent u-turns. The intersection should be updated to match reality and a junction box used to prevent u-turns if necessary.”
As for the unfinished section with the road that branches out with a different name but carries most of the traffic away from the first road, would this be a valid example?
I am not sure we even need that section, as it is just a wayfinder on a small scale.
I found a couple like the too. I was hoping for one without the “AGC” look to it. But I agree i’m not sold on including that example/ section because there is no additional guidance added. I did minimize the example into a collapsable section to be consistent with other recent wiki updates.
I copied this section from Interchange geometry, so I think it would be good to keep the language the same. Initially I though about transcluding the info there but there are a few extra bullets on the first geometry handle section that didn’t seem relevant to surface streets. I omitted those, which in my limited wiki knowledge seems like transcluding would not be possible.
Done
Done
As for the rest let’s see how the consensus pans out on Avoiding U-turns in box and partial box intersections & Historic U-turn routing prevention
After thinking about this more, if we do keep the section on prior U-turn prevention techniques i think we should move to the Mbox template that is mentioned in this post. That will keep messaging consistent across all pages. And since the template covers the info that was in the “Historic U-turn routing prevention” section we should do away with the Historic U-turn routing prevention" section.
If we agree to keep the “U-turn prevention in box and partial box intersections” section I am all for adding your suggestion -
“You may encounter intersections that appear pinched with a median segment that is shorter than reality. This was likely mapped prior to December 2021 to prevent u-turns. The intersection should be updated to match reality and a junction box used to prevent u-turns if necessary.”
I believe that the conditions listed in the Median U-Turn Penalty section are the same conditions that trigger a U-Turn announcement vs a left/left announcement. If so, you may want to keep the conditions and change the title and text to reflect that.
Are you referring to changes on this page proposal? Can you please be specific which title and text should be changed and what changes should be made. Thanks.
No, according to the announcement from December 6 of last year, the median segment must be < 30 meters to auto-generate the U-turn instruction, rather than < 15 meters for the old penalty.
Also, regarding your expanded section on partial box intersections, I prefer intersections like this where a transitioning road intersects a divided road. Not only does it look much cleaner and follow the actual movements of turning traffic better, but it eliminates the need for junction boxes to prevent U-turns. I understand that it is more complicated to set up though. I would suggest a line like “these are some of the valid ways to map intersections between divided and transitioning roads, but individual situations may call for different configurations.”
That one seems reasonable.
Do we even need that whole section?
That style was was discouraged during the falcon raid. I would argue that a junction box and a single median segment is simpler because allowed restricted paths are easier to see and normal lanes will work.
I added a section for U-turn instructions. It would be great to get some more eyeballs on this. This may not be the the right place or the only place this information should exist so we may want to create a template for this once we get the details sorted out. However, since this information isn’t in the wiki anywhere right now and it does cause some confusion I think it OK to have it on this page.
I added this example and removed the previous example.