[Page Update] TIO: Continue

[grsmhiker]

@DwarfLord

However, if consensus is forming around a list of positive usage examples, OK.

If we don’t want to explicitly forbid any particular usage of the Continue TIO, I think we need at least a list of negative usage examples…

Good observation; I feel that any guidance on TIO Continue should at first make it clear that the default implementation is to not use the Continue prompt except where deemed necessary in a small number of defined cases. For clarity should we include a brief list of obvious examples where nobody sane would call for a Continue (four-way stops, streets that cross a divided highway, etc) or stick with the more nuanced cases that have been discussed and rejected by community consensus (state lines, etc)?

Then, once making it clear that Continue is to be an exception used sparingly, we can list the cases where Continue might be warranted.

[sketch]

Generally, I agree with all this, looks good. I prefer “when to use” rather than “when not to use”, for the sake of consistency, but a “when not to use” coupled with a “when to use” can be helpful as well.

@Nagamasa

Generally re-wrote it, should be much more condense, with examples:

I will remind everyone a Wazeopedia article is not intended to be the definitive and exhaustive rulebook, local area consensus can be used for exceptional or unintended situations.

3) When the best continuation are the termini of a freeway.
. . .
—Otherwise, the prompt should be at the termination point of the freeway. .
. . [2]

I do have some issue with situations like this… there’s no good way to do it, is there? You either have “continue straight then turn left” from the freeway WB which is really bad (no advance warning of the turn), or you have “turn left then continue straight” from San Pablo NB, which is considerably less bad (an extra prompt but it doesn’t hurt anything). We need to be really careful in these situations.

@Nagamasa

6. When a wayfinder is warranted, for a particular direction:[/b]
   . . .
   —b) only the center lanes are correct (i.e., “keep/turn/exit left/right” are incorrect)

Sounds like this is referring to the center option of a 3-way split, which I think should be specified.

@Nagamasa

7) When lanes/vehicles continuing straight are dominated by turn lanes and/or volume of cars turning.
Consult your area managers for consensus.

I’m not quite sure what this means.

@DwarfLord

2. Locations where an instruction would not have issued without a TIO. In this case editors should not add a continue instruction unless the road name and number change, or it is necessary to insert a new instruction to postpone issuance of Waze’s long-distance “continue” instruction.

With this kind of attitude we would never have start putting wayfinders down. I cannot subscribe to this whatsoever.

And with Waze’s commuter focus, regional and even local consistency are far more important than national consistency anyway. Not to say that national consistency isn’t a noble and important goal, but most Wazers aren’t using it in Pittsburgh one day, Dallas the next, and rural Oregon a week after that.

Waze should to give the best instructions it can give in a particular situation. We should not be wary of a tool that finally allows us to do that without hacking up the map. And as long as we apply these in a way that makes sense to the user, we’re better off using them.

[DwarfLord]

@sketch

With this kind of attitude we would never have start putting wayfinders down. I cannot subscribe to this whatsoever.

I continue to feel my concern about the increasing difficulty of map maintenance and verification is well-founded. In fact, I have heard that Waze itself has been unhappy with our current level of map maintenance in certain areas.

I too want what is best for the Waze map and for drivers. I’m not trying to put the kibosh on using the tools we have to solve important problems. I just see potential downsides in the long run if we aren’t careful. But I appreciate your perspective, and as Keynes said, in the long run we’re all dead.

I’m curious if you would like to offer any examples where a well-intentioned and thoughtful editor might want to use the Continue TIO, but you believe should not? Earlier you mentioned you didn’t want a Continue TIO where a spur or business loop rejoins the main highway, but there’s controversy on that.

[Nagamasa]

@sketch

Generally, I agree with all this, looks good. I prefer “when to use” rather than “when not to use”, for the sake of consistency, but a “when not to use” coupled with a “when to use” can be helpful as well.

I’d like to lead with “when to use”, as it is an override–we should be looking for scenarios to add; rather than lead with “when not to use” which would imply we should add one everywhere, unless otherwise stated. GIven that the scenarios to use is a lot shorter, it’s more practical to describe to other editors. As well, and editor has to

@sketch

I do have some issue with situations like this… there’s no good way to do it, is there? You either have “continue straight then turn left” from the freeway WB which is really bad (no advance warning of the turn), or you have “turn left then continue straight” from San Pablo NB, which is considerably less bad (an extra prompt but it doesn’t hurt anything). We need to be really careful in these situations.

I picked a crappy example. We haven’t figured out how to solve this with #-intersections. If it was a bowtie, the use of a TIO is appropriate. These would be a better example. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-118.29155&lat=33.87213&s=112827798&zoom=4&segments=62463269
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-118.46780&lat=34.29164&s=112827798&zoom=4&segments=65032996

@sketch

Sounds like this is referring to the center option of a 3-way split, which I think should be specified.

Yes.

@sketch

I’m not quite sure what this means.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-79.42972&lat=43.83933&s=112827798&zoom=7&segments=72742402
(Besides the fact this is a ramp), often time there’s roads with 2 left + shared right/straight, and you see every single car turn and not continue straight; because it’s just some local road. Allowing local expertise here to possibly add a Continue can be helpful. (i.e., the “best continuation” in Waze doesn’t feel like the logical continuation in reality.)

[sketch]

@Nagamasa

I picked a crappy example. We haven’t figured out how to solve this with #-intersections. If it was a bowtie, the use of a TIO is appropriate. These would be a better example. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-118.29155&lat=33.87213&s=112827798&zoom=4&segments=62463269
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-118.46780&lat=34.29164&s=112827798&zoom=4&segments=65032996

Yeah, I wonder what the best course of action is here, because it won’t be possible across divided roads until and unless we can do TIO for certain JB movements. Except with some double-segment hacks, that is. Whether that’s worth it…

@Nagamasa

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-79.42972&lat=43.83933&s=112827798&zoom=7&segments=72742402
(Besides the fact this is a ramp), often time there’s roads with 2 left + shared right/straight, and you see every single car turn and not continue straight; because it’s just some local road. Allowing local expertise here to possibly add a Continue can be helpful. (i.e., the “best continuation” in Waze doesn’t feel like the logical continuation in reality.)

Understood. Here’s an example near me. Both lanes can and usually do turn left, but the right lane can also be used to turn right or go straight. https://www.waze.com/en-US/editor/?env=usa&lon=-90.11398&lat=29.98112&zoom=8&segments=74669468

[kentsmith9]

I’d be ok to add negative examples as well.

[Nagamasa]

I’ve added a list of do not, and updated the OP to reflect the entire Continue section:

Do not add a Continue TIO:
X1) Obvious continuations that are not otherwise listed above.

X2) When a local road name changes.
Such as when a neighbourhood road crosses into another arterial and changes names.

X3) When a freeway changes designation, but is not signed.
Some freeways are so short that they are never signed by name, merely as “to I-xxx”.

X4) When a wayfinder is warranted, when the continuation is not in the middle of the road.
While the continuation may lead in an overall straight direction, Wazers will need to pick the correct side of the road, such as at Y-shaped forks. Telling them to continue straight would not be productive. Use keep left/right instead.

X5) At intermediate barrier toll plazas.

[anon33958190]

@Nagamasa

Here is the revised list I propose:

Add a Continue TIO:
1) When the best continuation is to a restricted area (border control point, military area), paired with a wayfinder. [1] [2]

2) When the best continuation is tolled, marked or unmarked, paired with a wayfinder. For barrier-toll systems, only at the beginning of the toll area. [1]

3) When the best continuation are the termini of a freeway.
—If the freeway is signed before the termini, the prompts should be at the point of no return.[1]
—Otherwise, the prompt should be at the termination point of the freeway. [1] [2]
---Consult with your state manager if the freeway status changes frequently or gradual, or if the freeway itself is insignificant.

4) When the best continuation from a road (including off-ramps and parking lot roads) is an on-ramp to a freeway or expressway.

5) When the name of the continuation off of a ramp is not immediately obvious because it was:
—a) not previously named on a sign and or TTS [1] [2], or;
—b) named, but not otherwise indicated or obvious that it is in fact the road that continues straight (vs. a turn) [1]

6) When a wayfinder is warranted, for a particular direction:
—a) all travel lanes are correct [1], or;
—b) only the center lanes are correct in a 3±way fork (i.e., “keep/turn/exit left/right” are incorrect)

7) When lanes/vehicles continuing straight are dominated by turn lanes and/or volume of cars turning.
Consult your area managers for consensus.

Do not add a Continue TIO:
X1) If it is an obvious continuations that are not otherwise listed above.

X2) When the only change is that a local road name changed.
Such as when a neighbourhood road crosses into another arterial and changes names.

X3) When the only change is that a freeway changes designation, but is not signed.
Some freeways are so short that they are never signed by name, merely as “to I-xxx”.

X4) When a wayfinder is warranted, when the continuation is not in the middle of the road.
While the continuation may lead in a straight direction, Wazers need to pick the correct side of the road. Telling them to continue straight would not be productive. Use keep left/right instead.

X5) At intermediate barrier toll plazas.

Are you proposing adding this to https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Turn_instruction_override? If so, could you modify your draft of that page to include these things?

[Nagamasa]

@Kartographer, that itself was open to suggestions still, but seeing that the conversation has gone quiet, I think that could mean implicit agreement.

Further question though: for 6a, do we want to apply continue straight here: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.94314&lat=37.31658&s=104267731&zoom=7&segments=85248363,5275119 or here https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.85911&lat=37.26009&s=104333267&zoom=8&segments=57686141,57502147 ?

An Exit/keep left would imply the user should try to be on the left side of the road, whereas continue straight would imply that any lane is appropriate and there’s no need to fret about selecting/changing lanes.

[DwarfLord]

We haven’t discussed naming, but as the campaign to implement Continue TIOs picks up steam it would be good to clarify. Specifically I’m concerned about when one freeway ends in a transition to another, with no driver action necessary.

Granted that all such cases should now announce a “continue” for reasons discussed earlier in this thread as well as the benefit of giving drivers nice confirmations. But how do we name the continue to optimize driver experience? Do we repeat the contents of whatever BGS announces the transition? I’m not sure that’s best for the driver.

One reason not to repeat the BGS verbatim is the sheer amount of talking simply to tell the driver to do nothing. For example, a BGS at the end of SR-17 S says “Exit 1A: SR-1 N / Santa Cruz / Half Moon Bay”. The transition is otherwise invisible. One continues along a freeway that doesn’t change; same number of lanes, same paving material, same lane spacing, etc. The only way you know you’re now on SR-1 N is the fact you passed under a BGS that says so.

If we simply repeat the BGS, drivers will be told – most likely several times as they approach – to “Continue to Exit 1A: SR-1 N / Santa Cruz / Half Moon Bay”. That’s a lot of talking for a non-event that requires no action whatsoever.

Another reason not to recite the BGS verbatim is the word “Exit” itself. The driver will be told, maybe several times, to “Continue to Exit 1A” (for example) but upon arriving there, there will be nothing that looks like an exit. Just more highway with no change and nothing to do. This seems like it could be confusing.

I’d like to suggest a naming policy in such cases of simply announcing the new freeway number, with no additional information, regardless of what the BGS say. In the example, this means the instruction would be “Continue to SR-1 N”.

[DwarfLord]

Apologies for the double post – this post regards a completely separate question from the one above.

When we consider adding Continue TIOs where before we would have given no instruction, I think we need to weigh a downside: the new TIO will “block” the next instruction.

For example, let’s say one must exit immediately after a freeway changes number. Without the Continue TIO, Waze would warn – most likely several times – that one will be exiting. The display will show the next exit the whole time. This gives the driver plenty of advance notice to prepare for the exit.

Then we add the Continue TIO. Now, Waze will warn – again, most likely several times – to do nothing but go straight. One might even be in the leftmost lane as one approaches, since obeying the Continue instruction requires no special action. But after passing the number change, one suddenly discovers one must exit immediately!

In such cases, I am unsure that the Continue TIO is a net benefit.

[Nagamasa]

@DwarfLord

When we consider adding Continue TIOs where before we would have given no instruction, I think we need to weigh a downside: the new TIO will “block” the next instruction.

If the “Continue” is blocking to the point where Waze will issue a compound instruction, I would recommend to place the “Continue” TIO at the same node as the really close off-ramp, or at the ramp prior.

@DwarfLord

Granted that all such cases should now announce a “continue” for reasons discussed earlier in this thread as well as the benefit of giving drivers nice confirmations. But how do we name the continue to optimize driver experience? Do we repeat the contents of whatever BGS announces the transition? I’m not sure that’s best for the driver.

I would say we’d treat this the same as a regular wayfinder or BGS. The continue straight is simply Instead of leaving the road to the left/right, the correct course of action is to follow the straight continuation. Like another decision point, the driver needs confirmation that going straight is the correct action, as these often occur in areas with lots of merging.

Perhaps you know the SR-1 example too well xD
Here, I definitely would not crop out " / Gilroy". https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.85875&lat=37.26050&zoom=7&segments=57502147
Same here, would not drop " / San Francisco" https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-122.07059&lat=37.40630&zoom=6&segments=57502198

[sketch]

In these situations the “exit” signage would have called for a ramp or at any rate keep/exit instruction, so no, I don’t see why this should be any different.

The cardinal rule of ramp and WF naming has been to follow the sign without editorializing. In very limited instances, adjustments can be made to make a sign make sense, but the cornerstone of interchange design in Waze is that what you see on the sign is what you get in the app and from the voice. This is and remains the best possible way to make instruction content clear.

The only difference now is that we can represent the movement better by saying “continue straight” when all travel lanes do so. The sign still says what the sign says.

[DwarfLord]

My concern here is not about interchanges or instructions.

It’s about signs where there is no interchange and how much Waze should offer confirmations for those signs. That is, what do we want Waze to say as simple confirmation when it is impossible for any sane driver to do the wrong thing?

The perspective that Waze should represent “movement” as precisely as possible would lead, reductio ad absurdum, to the idea that we should place a Continue TIO for every BGS over the continuing lanes. For example, you’ve been driving on I-666 for 10 miles, and out in the middle of nowhere you pass under a BGS saying “I-666 S / Perdition / Hades / The Abyss”. No lane departures, no fork, no nothing, just the same highway continuing on. But there’s a BGS. Why not have Waze announce it?

No, I hear you say, the highway didn’t change names. Well, what if the highway department changes the incoming roadway to US-666, and tacks an Exit number onto the sign so it now says “Exit 1A: I-666 S / Perdition / Hades / The Abyss”. No change to the roadway itself. Now, we announce it? The whole thing, including the word “Exit”? When the roadway is exactly the same? How does rattling off the whole sign several times suddenly help the driver, when we were perfectly happy saying nothing at all before?

I say no. Our fundamental mission, our guiding principle, is not to read every dang sign to the driver in complete and excruciating detail. Our mission is (1) to help the driver do the correct thing with the steering wheel, and (2) to hold the driver’s hand in confusing situations just enough that the unfamiliar driver is comforted but not so much that the local driver is ticked off.

Absolutely, if the driver must do something with the steering wheel, I agree we should not say things that are not on the BGS, and we should try where possible to say everything that is on the BGS. Otherwise we violate mission #2. Complete agreement.

But when the driver need not do anything with the steering wheel, because there’s nothing to do – that’s the circumstance I’m talking about – I don’t see how Waze telling the driver to take a theoretical exit, or blocking the announcement of an upcoming real exit, or just going blah blah blah for 5 miles advances our mission.

[Nagamasa]

@DwarfLord

My concern here is not about interchanges or instructions.

It’s about signs where there is no interchange and how much Waze should offer confirmations for those signs. That is, what do we want Waze to say as simple confirmation when it is impossible for any sane driver to do the wrong thing?

Your SR-17/SR-1 example is an interchange. Do you mean when the continue TIO issued, but the segment doesn’t fly around on flyover ramps or through slow cloverleaves?

In other words:

1. when the freeway terminates and begins as another one (i.e., CA: I-280 @ I-680, SR-17 @ I-880)
2. when Freeway 1 merges into Freeway 2, but it’s Freeway 2 that is turning into the path of Freeway 1
   Examples of (2) in CA:
   SR-17 @ SR-1
   SR-99 @ I-5 (north of Sacramento)
   SR-120 @ I-5
   US-50 @ I-80
   SR-242 @ SR-4
   I-580 @ US-101
   I-238 @ I-580
   SR-13 @ I-580
   SR-149 @ SR-70
   I-80 @ US-101

[DwarfLord]

@Nagamasa

Do you mean when the continue TIO issued, but the segment doesn’t fly around on flyover ramps or through slow cloverleaves?

Something like that.

I have many concerns, but the main one is that we are making Waze too chatty by adding instructions that rattle off the entire contents of BGS verbatim, when the nature of the roadway doesn’t change and no sane driver would do anything besides continue straight.

I definitely support judicious use of the Continue TIO. What I am trying to say is that there are downsides that must be considered:

• Increase in chattiness
• Blocking instructions for actions immediately after the Continue
• Conveying the word “Exit” from the BGS, when nothing looks physically like an exit
• Inconsistent application, leading to confused driver expectations
• Increased difficulty of verification & maintenance as more and more TIOs get added
  These are downsides, not showstoppers. We can and should use the Continue TIO. I’m just staying we must remember the tradeoffs when we do so. If the tradeoffs are severe, editors need the flexibility to omit the TIO or to reduce the name length.

In our area we have already received a complaint that a Continue TIO on a freeway blocked a needed driving instruction until very late. So, this is a real concern and I am not making this up.

p.s. It’s come to my attention that some who have expressed no concern about Waze becoming too chatty typically drive with the voice instructions off. That’s absolutely fine of course, but I’d like to suggest that folks who’d like to evaluate Waze’s level of chattiness turn on the voice announcements, if only temporarily, in order to provide the best possible feedback here.

[FzNk]

With the talk of wayfinders, I wonder if the already decided rules that previously left standard continuations silent shouldn’t still be followed. Otherwise, we’ll end up creating a whole new set of wayfinder rules for the JSG that I think was pretty well thought out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sketch]

Wayfinders apply not at a route end but in the middle of a route. I don’t really consider what happens when one highway ends to be a “wayfinder” situation.

[anon33958190]

@sketch

Wayfinders apply not at a route end but in the middle of a route. I don’t really consider what happens when one highway ends to be a “wayfinder” situation.

I see what you mean, that wayfinders only tell you how to stay on the road you’re on. If that road is ending, you can’t stay on it However, it seems like the way the term is used has expanded to include any situation where short segments are used to give modified instructions. Since I think the word “wayfinder” was made up here, I am wondering what is the best way to define it.

@FzNk

With the talk of wayfinders, I wonder if the already decided rules that previously left standard continuations silent shouldn’t still be followed. Otherwise, we’ll end up creating a whole new set of wayfinder rules for the JSG that I think was pretty well thought out.

I think the rules for giving keep instructions (the wayfinder criteria section) are good and shouldn’t be changed. However, continue allows us to give useful instructions in places where the keep instruction would have been inappropriate. IMHO criteria for that should be spelled out in a different place.

[Nagamasa]

I took a quick first stab at updating the Wiki. I also took the liberty to refactor and nest the various TIO instructions, as well as minor tweaks throughout the article.

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/User:Nagamasa/Turn_instruction_override

Diff: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/index.php?title=User:Nagamasa/Turn_instruction_override&diff=159100&oldid=159083