I would like to propose the addition of a subsection of 8.2, following the Rest Area/Welcome Center Consistency Sheet, containing the following wording:
[color=#FF0000]Roadside Park Consistency
Michigan has 80+ MDOT-maintained roadside parks and scenic turnouts, spanning both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas. They are found on state and US highways, and typically are seasonal, open Apr-Nov. Usually found at a scenic natural feature, they provide parking, and most provide toilet facilities and picnic areas. These are not Rest Areas(see the Rest Area wiki page). The State of Michigan maintains a list of MDOT roadside parks here http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-11151_11033_52552ā,00.html, and on the MiDrive map https://mdotnetpublic.state.mi.us/drive/. Place Categories Park (under Outdoors) should be set as the primary category.
Naming Standards
The standardized name format has been optimized for both instant and regular search results.
The name begins with āRoadside Parkā to facilitate the instant search results, which are based on the first words of the search term.
The name of the park comes next in the placeās name, following a hyphen (-). The proper name is the official MDOT name, found in the links in the opening paragraph.
Example: āRoadside Park - Michigammeā Other Guidelines
If the park has 2 entrances (e.i. a loop), the PLR should be broken into 4 segments, and locked at 3. This is to avoid confusing routing instructions created by PLR name inheritance when the park is routed as an intermediate stop. Example: Traveling on M-28, user receives instruction when entering the park, āIn 1000 feet, turn right on M-28ā. The desired instruction is āIn 1000 feet, turn rightā.
Include a (concise) description using text from MDOT, along any other relevant info (such as āClosed for winter, only open Apr-Novā).
Use the MiDrive link for the website, and MDOT main contact for the phone number.
Follow all other guidelines for Places.[/color]
Any input is appreciated. Also, the author is undecided on whether a Google Sheet similar to the Rest Area sheet is justified.
Looks good,
Two suggestions, 1) Take a look at some other wazeopedia pages on how to do a link and show the title wording vice the actual link in the post. 2) would it be better to have a ramp as the entrance and label it with the Parkās name? This would make it so you donāt get road inheritance and the middle segment if two entrances is PLR.
I think you have a great start Seth. My only suggestion would be to remove the 4 segment loop for name inheritance in case Waze removes the name inheritance for PLRs. Great job though!
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the links looks bad. I do have it correctly displayed in my Wiki userspace, but was having difficultly here in the forum. As for proper road type, I will defer to MI SMās. The 4 segment PLR was not of my own creation, and was suggested by a senior editor. The thought is to avoid confusing turn instructions, and if that is possible without creating other problems, awesome. Use of ramp type had not occurred to me, but again, I will defer to MI leadership.
Very well thought out, Seth. Not many R2 editors make wiki proposals, but not many R2 editors have your degree of skill. I like the senior editorās idea for the 4-segment loop to avoid name inheritance as well. (lol) Using the Ramp road type would be unconventional, but then again we already use Ramps in unconventional ways in Michigan because of our stateās affinity for MUTIs; that would be something for the SMs to think about.
And I hope Joe is right about name inheritance possibly being modified or eliminated, at least where PLRs are concerned. The current system gives deceptive directions when leaving PLRs, and results in more than its share of URs. But as long as we have the current system (and we canāt assume that things will change anytime !soon), the four-segment loop will do the trick.
I think a sheet would aid in adding / updating the roadside parks to the standard.
There is a park near me that I can test for issues with name inheritance. I currently have it mapped as a single PLR, but have never routed it as an interim stop. My comment on ramps is that they would add editing complexity, since most parks do not have dedicated one-way entrances (compared to interstate rest areas).
We will need to determine the appropriate lock level and add that to the wiki (once a place is appropriately detailed)
I attached a few images of the park near me. I used the description to match the posted sign - as only the word āseasonā is identified. From what Iāve seen, there is not much (if anything) identified on MDOT regarding when these parks are open. We may have to go off what we can see in WSV.
For clarification, the cars you see in the image are in the car pool lot (outside the park). The parking lot on the north side of the WME image is for the park. The north entrance does not have WSV.
Once you get done with this, you can take on my project for Car Pool Lots.
JB
Ramp segments to PLRs are used for travel plazas off of interstates, so I donāt think it is unconventional. Already a precident on the use and proven to work. Using the four segments will make unnecessary segments which I know Staff hates and if someone uses the broom while the roadside park is on the screen (or even just off the screen) then poof your segments are consolidated. Ramp, PLR for single entrance or ramp, PLR, ramp for two entrances will prevent that problem.
BTW, Joe, when I wrote this, in my mind, you were included in MI leadership, whether that is technically correct or not. No slight intended.
On the whole discussion of Ramp type, does it matter if they are two-way or not? In my experience, the majority of MI roadside parks do not have one way segments.
JB, I would be happy to undertake your Car Pool Lot project.
Thinking more on this. Ramps may not be a problem. With a two segment loop and both segments having the same name - like āto Roadside Parkā or something - youād only hear it when entering.
I was just thinking we could name the ramps, similar to what we do for rest areas. This will solve the name inheritance problem as well. We will also have to think about lock level as well. Do we need to have a high L5 lock or are we okay with an L3.
Joe, I like your naming idea. We lock rest areas at L5 presumably because theyāre along freeways locked at L5, so a lock level matching the access road seems appropriate.
So, would the turn instruction in this case be "Turn right/left āto Roadside Parkā "? Or would it be "Turn right/left on āto Roadside Parkā "? Iām unfamiliar with what prepositions are used. My gut says that prepositions vary based on turn vs exit vs keep, but I do not have data to back that.
This does make sense to me to use HCS for lock level. I think that this would put the majority on L3. If the above ramp/naming scheme is adopted(which is not terribly different than how rest areas are done), I think that this would be sufficient. If a very different road setup is used(such as 4 segment PLR), then in my opinion, they should be higher(at least L4, maybe L5). I am assuming that the park, PLA, and road segments should all be at the same lock level.
I havenāt had a chance to read through it entirely, but initially I would say nice work!
I have also emailed one of my MDOT transportation team contacts to see if we can get an export of the location data to make the input go a little faster. Iāll let you know the outcome of that.
Update - As the information wasnāt already on one of the data source websites, they are checking with the legal department to see if they are allowed to release the information in a exported formatā¦
Bloody legal system. Itās already posted onlineā¦ Just not in THAT formatā¦
I believe the choice of roads type obvious considering the removal of PLR name inheritance in the production app.
If there is any opposition to the proposed naming format because of doubts that they would show properly in instant search, then I would propose adding āRoadside Park - xxxā as an alt name in addition. I made this change because the results of an informal survey of instant search results for āroadside parkā, and questioning of search results in the #wazeopedia channel on the USA server. This has the benefit of looking better on the map, as some names donāt flow well with āRoadside Parkā at the beginning.
This proposal also has updated URLās, concerning MDOTās newly updated websites, and the addition of photos. I apologize that I am linked to a userspace, but I do not know how to transfer formatting and photos into a forum post.
