With the version 4.0.0.3 iOS update railroads are visible in the app and I’ve already responded to a UR mentioning missing tracks.
In terms of guidance there is slightly conflicting information about whether rail should be connected to roads so we’ll need direction from Canadian Champs on what to do.
Best Map Editing Practice says not to connect to roads.
US Road Types says you can connect as needed, not mass editing.
Screenshot below is from this area.
My understanding is that the US Road Types wiki page guidelines are the most up-to-date on the topic, but I’d be curious to know what the champs think. This could also be discussed next weekend at the meetup!
On this topic, follow US advice.
Connect it, but restrict all turns to and from the tracks.
Assuming of course, it is an at-grade crossing. If it is an overpass/underpass situation, do not add junction, but ensure elevations are set correctly.
Waze will not route on Railroads.
My understanding it is not penalty it is hard codded.
I believe it doesn’t matter if you restrict the turns or not, therefore I rather have everything allowed and not seeing red turns.
I agree with Kris to keep connecting them. They are adding value traffic data to the roads they cross.
HM.
I would agree that the understanding is that Waze won’t route on them, however the current US guidance is to restrict all turns. It does no harm and is likely best not to deviate from that.
Make sense @doctorkb.
I can’t find the reference I saw, I thin kit was in one of the US forums.
Anyway - This mismatch between the Wiki was discussed in the US forum - https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=148501
HM.
You could have looked up Austrian Wiki too, we also have covered the latest change of heart…[emoji1]
FYI connecting RR (at level crossings) was brought up by me (reasoning influence in ETA accuracy and increase in traffic data, same as Marian adressed) at London GC meetup during the Yigal hour, and he agreed that to be a good idea and to be done from now on, promising to us that this will never lead to RR routings.
On the subject of TR: we set them restricted but then turn the RR to unknown direction, which in fact results in “invisible red arrows”.
We set RR on a different level from roads . That would prevent to many MP we had in the past due to connections with roads . I just want to remember that waze is base on penalties only and not avoiding something in the real sense of the world .
Remember the private roads are not available for routing ( except if final destinations is in that segments … But from time time WAZE use it for routing like a normal road … Explanations …in some cases WAZE believe that’ s …the best choice …
That’s why I prefer to keep RR not connected
Sent by my IPad using Tapatalk
Wiki in the US is asking to have railroads as two way.
HM.
No critics on the US decision, but as Silvio points out, Waze works on penalities, to increase them further we decided to put RR unknown. Again, this is meant as an explanation on our decision, not judging on US wiki.
My question/pledge in London was based on the explanations on the routing Yigal gave in Barca 2014. By application of his statements it became clear to me that level RR crossings need to be put into the map (negative influence on predictablility of ETA). Therefore I expicit asked for it in London, getting a verdict from Yigal in my theorie. As he agreed he further encouraged us to connect RR in the future, pomising doing so will never create a routing via RR.
Sorry, if this is worded a bit cryptic to some, but as this is an “open channel” I just can “hint” on information presented to GC on a CONFIDENTIAL base (the majority of posters here is GC and will understand).
Also I fully understand and respect Silvio’s (or the Italians) decision of keeping RR on a different elevation, due to experience in the past I find it hard to blindly believe Yigals promise. But on the other hand we know that Yigal really knows his stuff, therefore I decided for Austria to trust him and go ahead. Slowly first, not in a mapraid manner charging and changing all RR crossings, I’d like to point out, but basically we adopted the procedure as discussed in London.
Btw. the Hungarians had a different idea with the implementation of RR crossings: in Hungary those crossings are known to be dangerous, there are a lot of accidents, including leathal ones. So for safety reasons they would like to avoid them if reasonable possible, this can only be achieved, if they are mapped. They had no specific methode in mind, just any way of making them detectable in Waze. Anyway the reason I was asking for it serves their purpose as well.
For clarification - this has been a feature requested in North America since at least 2012. Pretty sure it wasn’t a 2014 request at a meetup that triggered its implementation.
Furthermore, we tend to not look at the European countries for guidance, as there is often some very different driving conditions. In North America, we have a lot of drivers that cross the border between the countries, and for the most part, try to align our practices with those of the US to allow for a more uniform approach.
I believe that for US and Canada your words are correct
Sent by my IPad using Tapatalk
Sorry if I gave the impression, but I didn’t mean visibillity of RR itself…I just now this as a request on Waze right from my beginning, and I certainly don’t claim this to be a new or european idea.
No daubt in that! +1
The question in London 2015 was on connecting RR, following the explanation on junction nodes (among a lot of other things) in Barca 2014. Basically this was not even in respect of visibility of RR in the client, so I definitely don’t claim this to be of european origin.
To be precise it started with the question, if we should not add junction nodes to represent a RR crossing which can be open ore closed the time you get there. It just ended with Yigals “verdict” that it would be good to add junction nodes AND connect the RR due to the supression of penalties on junction nodes with just two segments attached…for they mainly result from changes like elevation (remember the seagull discussion) or city name (if someone insists on having it exactly on the right geogrphical spot) which are not related to the reason a penalty is added on a “true” junction (predictability of ETA).
Yes, we’ve been talking about connecting railroads for quite a while, as well.
In the past, I’ve had to clean up from new editors who connected them thinking that would help get better traffic data (if the end point of a navigation is on that road, then it might affect directions depending on train schedule).
I’m glad that your communication was the impetus for Yigal to make it happen. It’d be nice if he had done something similar with the other non-vehicle segment types (e.g. Walking Trail) as well. Apparently those will still be routable.
From testing of railroads, there is no known situation under which Waze will route to or from such a segment. Although I only tested up to where the nearest available road segment was > 1mi away. Even then Waze picked the nearest road segment and not the RR. According to Waze, railroads are not included in the segments available to the routing server to even consider. A “infinite penalty” as it were.
Other ped types are routable on purpose because in many locations, the actual street and address of a residence or business is a non-driveable segment. We still want Waze to route to the correct address location.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks Alan , exhaustive explanation.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
That sounds great! Too bad there isn’t a routing instruction to “Park and continue on foot” when it comes to such a junction.
…that sounds too much for WAZE …isn’t it ?
At list we could keep it as a dream !!
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Based on this the turn restrictions into and out of a railroad segment (from/to a driveable segment) are irrelevant and will not change anything. Correct?
HM.
Correct, irrelevant. Behavior is the same. infinity+1 = infinity. 