I thought we already had guidance on this configuration in one of the two pages, but if not we can discuss that.
For visitor-optimized routing, my assumption was depending on what street type is used inside, we need one transition penalty at the visitor entrance and for all other resident-only entrances we need two transition penalties.
For the exits, we need to confirm if all exits are available for guests and visitors then they are set up with the same penalty (or none-if possible). Any exits that are resident only have to be set up with the same additional penalty over the visitor exit.
Fine with me to have single PR on visitor entrance and double PR (PR-LS-PR) on the resident only ones.
One last thing to consider since some complexes don’t have SV or very old blurry SV, if not able to figure out if there is a Visitor Entrance then apply same penalty for all gates.
I assume the proposal means in the absence of any information to say an entrance is restricted to only residents or an entrance is for visitors, treat all gates with the same level restriction. I could go with that.
I think we can go one further. Let’s say we have 3 gates. At one gate we see a sign, “residents only.” The other two SV of the gates are too blury to tell for sure and they both look like they could have a guard or some communication to internal residents to allow visitors through the gate. Correct me if I am wrong, for that case I believe we can set the “Residence only” entrance to double penalty and the other two to single penalty. Then if we get URs that say otherwise, we can adjust as needed.
I am fine with making “Residents Only” signed gates double PR and default to visitor routing for all other gates.
Do we want to mention that if there are two lanes going in - one for residents and one for visitors then just map as one visitor lane since the parallel resident one would probably never be used unless there was a HUGE delay/accident on the visitor one? Basically a keep it simple but minimize segments type of thing. Yes this is probably obvious but I have seen this mapped before… :o
Could we make this guidance more general beyond just residential by limiting it to when there are both visitor and non-visitor entrances? This handles an exception that would be necessary for some private residential areas where visitors must first register but can then enter through any gate.
I’m not sure I follow your proposal, so let me rephrase what I think I read.
This proposal is all about when a residential community has multiple gates and some people can only enter in one (or less than all) other gates. If any person is not pre-approved by a prior entry, they would still need guidance to the visitor entrance and would need this configuration. Are you just asking for the wording to be more flexible to allow for your description?
Sorry for the lack of clarity. It was an exception that turned into a question.
The exception: Black Butte Ranch, OR is a large private community where guests must register at a welcome center before entering the restricted area from any gate. Without a specific visitor entrance, there’s nowhere for us to funnel visitors so we would keep this mapped as the ‘optimized for residents’ option.
The question: If I’m correct in seeing that the reason for the exception needed for Black Butte Ranch is akin to the one for military bases, would we be able to (and would we want to) provide guidance for mapping installation entrances categorized by the type of entry (acquired credentials vs. visitor entrances) instead of the type of installation (small/large residential, military, commercial, government, etc.)?
Got it. The need to go to a separate visitor center to get a credential to enter any gate was lost on me.
I would then agree this installation requires that residents tell the first time visitors to go to a specific location and then continue on to their address inside through any gate.
Interesting idea on the conditions to classify a facility. Maybe we can make a table of conditions that would help guide editors for one or the other (plus any variations that may be under those two).
The two main entrances are off of US 20. One near the welcome center and one west on Hawks Beard. The entrance on McAllister is mainly for access to some other facilities, but it may be faster for residents near it. The entrance via BLM road is probably unused but the roads were already connected so I mapped it. I don’t see a viable way to set up visitor access for something like this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edit: Adding PLs
Since the two main entrances are off of Hawks Beard where it splits with Bishop’s Cap is it marked well enough that people see that visitors turn to the welcome center on Bishop’s Cap? If so you could have the turn off from US-20 to Hawks Beard as the single entry PR and McAllister as the PR - LS - PR. Other wise you could have the welcome center entrance (Bishop’s Cap) as a single PR gate and the west on Hawks Beard and McAllister entrances as PR - LS - PR. This would provide visitor routing. Although the McAllister entrance is several miles from the other two.
Personally, I would leave it the way you have it all three gates are just a single PR and then tell people to either have all their first time guests (or guests who have to register) search for “Black Butte Ranch Welcome Center” which has been a Waze Place since Oct 2014. Or to search for their final destination and then add “Black Butte Ranch Welcome Center” as a stop.
I think the entrance on McAllister being 10 min faster and about 2.5 miles shorter should be recommended vice making everyone go through the visitor center. That is the purpose of Waze in my opinion.
I think there might be a small sign saying “<- Welcome Center / General Store | Lodge / Golf Course ->” but all signs on the ranch are intentionally subtle. Even if we turn them onto Bishops Cap, they’d still have to know that they need to turn into the welcome center or they’ll just end up at the gate.
That’s pretty much in line with the point I was trying to make. I’m fine with holding drivers’ hands to an extent but at some point, like with military bases, it’s on the driver to know that there are procedures for entering certain installations.
(BTW, thanks for the LiveMap route. It made me realize the Hawks Beard entrance is broken. :oops:)
I have the same issue with our private residential area. Only the main gate is allowed for the public. All other gates ( 4 others) are restricted access residents only. I do not know how to edit this so that the correct public route shows up in Waze. Only residents should know the restricted access gates anyway.
REF: Horseshoe Village, Quezon City, Philippines. Restricted access gate: St. Paul st. corner St. Peter st.
The way to do this is spelled out in the global private installation page. I think I found where you are talking about, which is here. This forum is for discussing mapping guidance in the USA, so you really should ask your question in the Philippines forum, especially since the way private roads are used in your country appears to differ significantly from how we use them in the USA.