What’s the difference between a private road and “all day / every day / any vehicle” driving restriction?
I think this should be a private road rather than a driving restriction - but @iainhouse recently edited it and presumably knows better.
Is there anything I should know before changing it?
Thanks.
(I can’t PM this to @iainhouse because “Some users couldn’t be added as they have disabled private message receipt.”)
You should always question everything :!: Iain only edited it as he’s doing a general tidy up of the Scotlands. Look like he merged several segments into 1, which may have made a short restricted segment now cover the full length.
Private Roads prevent Waze using the segment for through routing, but will use it if the destination is along it or you are already on the segment. The full restriction should stop Waze routing into the segment entirely and any suggested route should stop at either junction.
If you can determine the section that no vehicles are permitted I’d split the segment into 2 and remove all restrictions with no segment mapped between (highlighted by my MC).
Unusually, I do remember this. Or to be more accurate, I remembered it when I checked GSV.
Both ends of this segment have signs saying “no vehicular access”. If it was just private, then any destination nearest to the segments would still route up the road despite the signs. Since the actual roads are clearly driveable, I think they should appear on the map (to prevent “missing road” reports), but the restriction matches the clear signs. No Waze user should be sent past these signs and the restriction prevents that.
There’s another access road from the south with no such sign, which is the “allowed” access to the estate. I see you’ve changed that from private road to street - and I’m not sure why you’ve done that.
In practice, if there are no restrictions, then the segment type is actually irrelevant to a dead-end segment. If the destination is on it, it will be used (as long as it’s a routable type). I left it as private because there’s a very obvious gate, implying private land. Also, if it’s private, then there will be no script alerts for missing speed limits/name as there now are - although I don’t use that as a justification for using private. I still need to see a gate or a sign before I set private, although I may leave existing private unchanged, depending on how I feel at the time. 
[EDIT] Sorry about PMs being off, by the way. Absolutely not something I had done. I guess it’s yet another bug in this crappy new forum. I’ve yet to find one single thing in the whole stupid exercise that has improved my forum use in any way whatsoever.
It’s a private road through the Haddo estate; they don’t want the visting public coming that way. There are signs saying “satnav is wrong” and directing to the public car park which is accessed by another road from the south. However, estate traffic can use that road.
Because it’s the public access to the estate which is open daily dawn - dusk. Should it be a private road?
Where do you see that?
Thanks.
Since the northern road is estate traffic only, the restrictions are the right thing to do. The Google places for Haddo House and Haddo Chapel are closest to that segment. If the Waze place were deleted, or the Google links removed from it, or new Google results on the estate are added to Gmaps, then the absence of restrictions could lead to Waze users being directed along the estate-only road.
Admittedly this could lead to bad routing for genuine estate traffic. But these users are few and should know where they’re going anyway. Given the “satnav is wrong” signs, they plainly have an issue with this. With the restrictions on the segments, we can be sure that this does not include Waze. 
As for the segment type on the southern segment: as I explained, what type it is makes no difference to routing as long as it’s routeable (not walking trail, pedestrian). Whether it’s offroad, private, PLR, unpaved, narrow road, street or freeway - if it’s the only unrestricted segment that lead to the destination, it will be used.
The gate I referred to is here. Alright, I know there are only gateposts and no actual barrier, but I would interpret that as being clearly the entry to private land, along with the signs for Haddo House/Estate. Having it as private makes a small but noticeable difference in the app which I thing is appropriate. And, as I said, the fact you’ve changed it to street means it’s now a segment type that is expected to have a speed limit, but doesn’t and WME Magic will highlight that.
It’s also an un-named segment. At UK Meetups, Waze HQ have occasionally used a metric of un-named streets to measure the “maturity” of the UK map. This is mainly stupid, as it ignores the fact that vast numbers of UK rural roads genuinely have no name and I never set roads as private just to avoid that. But in this case, I think Private is a justifiable segment type and again removes a potential problem that WME Colour Highlights or WME Validator will pick up.
Let me put it another way. I don’t remember if I set the segment type to private - the history doesn’t say. It might have been private before I touched it. But if it was private before I came along, I would have seen no reason whatsoever to change that.
In this UR all the roads around Glamis Castle are marked as private - so waze has perhaps opted for the shortest or closest one, which is behind a closed gate. The public entrance is the avenue from Glamis village - which is clearly a private road behind a gated entrance. Nevertheless, that’s the way that waze should be directing people.
An entry point is marked, but it’s unhelpfully close to the building. It can be moved a short distance down the avenue, though not as far as the gates. I wonder whether that would help? Or should that avenue be marked as a regular street so that waze would prefer it? Or should the estate roads be disconnected from the A928 at the locked gate by the UR?
Thanks.
If an entrance is closed off to the public, then put a restriction on it to prevent routing. You could disconnect it, although I probably wouldn’t. I definitely wouldn’t put in a piece of walking trail! :shock:
If there’s only one or two legitimate entrances, you could use normal street for them. But I would always tend towards restricting the non-public entrances - not least because you can add a note directly to the restriction to explain why it’s there, avoiding the need for extra map comments.
Obviously there is a limitation on how far an entry point can be from the place. In this case, a tiny little area place over one of the buildings limits how far you can get. It’s also probably near invisible in the app. I wouldn’t say it’s unreasonable to expand the area place to cover the whole grounds. That way, you should be able to place the entry point exactly where you want, and approaching drivers will see they are coming up on their destination visually.