Because it will automatically take the name of the next named ramp. They have the same name, so there’s no need* to name the first one as it’ll already give the second one’s name as the instruction. It makes zero difference* client-side, so there’s no reason* to have the extraneous name taking up space in the Waze database. It’s just streamlining.
I will qualify this by saying that there is actually a reason to name this ramp—if you want the “keep right” command here, but no corresponding command for staying to the left. Because both of these segments are unnamed, the left side of the fork will be considered the “best continuation” and no instruction will be given. On the other hand, if the right side of the fork is left unnamed, there will be no best continuation and an instruction will be given either way.
Just a “point of curiosity” question, but how does a segment less than 2 meters in length (which is a bit over 6 feet) cause a problem? I agree, it’s kinda pointless to put in a segment that’s that short, but I’m wondering why there’s a check for it (not opposed; just curious).
That’s a relief. When he posted that, I was afraid that you’d turned it back on for some reason.
We were told just a week or two ago by Waze staff that any segment under 5 meters can cause problems—specifically with the calculation of average times.
So, this check should probably be adjusted to alert for any segment under 6 m long.
Why is it wrong for walking trails, boardwalks, and runways to be elevation -5?
I hadn’t heard that -5 means railroad. -5 is just a convention that mean do not connect to roadway.
I don’t see why a walking trail with elevation -5 is an error. What else should it be?
“Rails to trails” are very popular. Many trails follow old RR rights-of-way.
A useful check is a non-drivable type junctioned with a drivable type.
So recreate the roundabout with the extra node. I still don’t really understand the point of mapping roundabouts with only two segments. But I have seen them give similar problems as any two segments that are connected to the same two nodes. I’ve had more issues with two segment roundabouts than with non-sequential segment ID roundabouts.
Although there are still times where naming individual segments apply (as you mentioned further in your message), so it seems that a check of that type is probably still not a good idea. Both in the case that we’re talking about and which you acknowledge, but also times when the name changes to provide directional information.
I.E., an offramp that splits; the split segments have information about what they’re taking you to beyond simply the road name that they’re connecting you to.
Some communities have been using Walking Trails at elevation -5 to signify railroads as a matter of editor policy. Remember that a lot of the checks in Validator are not necessarily wrong, they’re just things that might need a look.
I’ll reiterate the point I made, that many of these are just checks. Not everything needs action. Some extraneous nodes are there because of temporary disconnections for closures, for example. There are some cases where the directions are different depending on which side you’re coming from, yes. But there are plenty cases where they’re the same. It’s still worth looking at.
Whether the name takes up space in the database is a matter of how the database is designed. It doesn’t affect routing. Regardless, it should not be the rationale driving this change.
How exactly do you do that, given that the “add roundabout” tool only adds nodes for each road coming into it?
I suppose it could be managed by temporarily creating a third road leading into it and then deleting that road once the roundabout is created, but to me that falls back into what kentsmith9 was saying about being more unnecessary work.
Since when is a roundabout about how many roads enter it? A roundabout is a big honkin’ (or in some cases, a small honkin’ :-)) circular road, running one way, around something in the middle of it. Other roads attach to it and those coming from the entering roads are required to yield to the traffic already in the roundabout.
In U.S. dictionaries the terms “roundabout”, “traffic circle” and “rotary” are synonyms. There’s no requirement that there be more than two roads attached.
I’ll take you at your word for it, though I haven’t seen any such. If such is the case, then it seems to me that those of you with access to Waze staff need to encourage them to fix that, since that’s clearly a bug that needs fixing.
One question, though, and I didn’t see an answer to this the last time we were discussing it: You had indicated that in the past you’ve seen that to be the case. Is it, in fact, still the case now? Have you seen any recent occurrences of whatever the problem behavior is that you’ve seen? It could very well be that it’s already been fixed.
In practice, you are mistaken. There are many editors that expect the Validator to give their area a clean bill of health. Come to chat and talk to them. Editors have been deleting the loops flagged with “Same endpoints drivable segments” error. I recommended installing the updated Validator instead.
Any arbitrary “rules” like this should be turned off by default, clearly marked as informational when turned on, and marked with green or some color never used for errors.
Map simplicity is cited as a rationale by people around here pretty often. I don’t personally always agree with it—accurate reflection of reality is more important—but I do understand that there is an interest in keeping the data size smaller, thereby reducing the amount of data that needs to be pulled by the client. A small difference, yes, but the kind of thing that adds up if it’s taken as a matter of course.
Really, though, I’m not the one to rationalize that. It’s not a cause my heart’s really in. The example used is the kind of case where I wouldn’t remove a ramp name if I came across it.
The better rationalization for this is simplicity in editing. For ramp segments like these, it’s a lot easier to deal with if the only one you have to fix the name on is the long one that the two smaller segments lead into. The example shown earlier, on the other hand, may be easier to edit if the name is kept. Here’s another example of that.
Many editors also landmark Best Buys and Burger Kings, doesn’t mean they’re right. Instead of disallowing them from landmarking, we should be teaching them not to landmark. Likewise, we should be teaching editors to take much of what they see in Validator with a grain of salt.
But yes, I agree that this particular check should be a “note”. Notes are blue, informational, and turned off by default.
Exactly. Even less work is just having a street with no roundabout at all.
A couple of thoughts.
I didn’t say they weren’t roundabounts, just that they weren’t worth mapping.
Although yielding to the traffic is a consideration, its not a universal quality of traffic circles. There are certainly urban signaled circles where “at the roundabout take the second exit” is a useful instruction, but the traffic in the circle doesn’t have any right-of-way over the traffic entering the circle as the entries are all signaled.
I still don’t see the advantage of an instruction that says “at the roundabout continue straight” or “at the roundabout take the first exit,” when there are no other roads to take. The roundabout as a corner does confuse me. I prefer “take at left at . . .”, to “at the roundabout take the first exit”, if the only things I can do are turn left or go back the way I came. If its truly a big honkin’ circle, I’d prefer to get a turn right at State Circle and then get a turn right on Main St instruction.
I have not seen recent occurrences, so roundabouts may now be treated differently with regard to this issue.
Actually, one of the defining characteristics of the modern roundabout is that traffic entering yields to traffic already in the circle unless otherwise marked (at least, within the USA; obviously, I can’t speak regarding other countries). (By “otherwise marked,” I mean that there will be signs in the circle directing traffic to yield to the entering traffic.) A “modern roundabout” is a type of looping junction in which road traffic travels in one direction around a central island and priority is given to the circulating flow. Signs usually direct traffic entering the circle to slow and to yield the right of way. See this document from the Federal Highway Administration for further information.
I even found the following image that kind-of illustrates the whole roundabout thing:
While it’s true that US dictionaries use “roundabout” and “traffic circle” as synonyms, in technical terms, they’re different.
Common distinctions between modern roundabouts and older rotary type intersections:
Typically, modern roundabouts are:
smaller than rotaries
designed for slower entry, circulating, and exit speeds
always following a “yield-at-entry” traffic control principle
designed with a raised splitter island to slow and deflect traffic prior to entry
designed to facilitate safer pedestrian crossings
designed to follow a same lane entry/lane exit principle at multilane roundabouts (NO LANE CHANGES in the circulatory roadway)
Signalized Traffic Circles are NOT Roundabouts. As an example, Dupont Circle in Washington DC is not a roundabout, it’s a Traffic Circle with signals (I.E. a Signalized Traffic Circle).
(Source)
As with anything in life, there are bound to be exceptions to the above - however, they’re just that: Exceptions, not the rule.
I realize that this is possibly going beyond the scope of what needs to be considered from a Waze “mapping it” standpoint, but I feel that the point needs to be made - after all, we’re talking about mapping roundabouts and whether or not the Validator should be annoying us with non-warning about a two-entering road roundabout. (Also, I felt that the distinction between the two should be pointed out, even if the map software doesn’t give us a way to map them differently.)
I’m sure there are those who might say that there’s no difference from a mapping standpoint since we only have a “Add Roundabout” function within the WME. I expect you’re probably one of them. However, if a distinction needed to be made, I’m thinking that for those editors who have the Toolbox installed, the “Change roundabout to standard road” (which would still be a one-way circular road) tool could help with that and thus a signalized traffic circle could be represented that way. I’m not advocating this; just suggesting it as a possibility if it were felt important enough to treat them differently in the map.
Then can I make the request that when you’re arguing against two-road roundabouts that you drop that as a reason? If it’s no longer happening, then it seems to me that it’s no longer a valid reason to use in a “do it or not” type of consideration. But maybe that’s just me.
Two ramps with the same name does NOT take up any more space in the database. It will be exactly the same as if one had no name. There’s no advantage in removing names from ramps, even of they’re not needed.
You’ve also hinted that ramp names are sometimes carefully created by editors to get the right instructions. This is another reason not to have this check…
Sure you can make the request. But if I understand correctly, the validator is simply applying the same rules regarding two segments connecting the same two junctions that is applied to any segments to roundabout segments. I do believe that there are currently problems when the same two segments connect the same two junctions. I guess I’d like to see more evidence that roundabout segments are somehow treated differently with regard to these problems.
Then I will respectfully concede. Like I said, my heart wasn’t really in it anyway.
Perhaps we could use a “Note” for when the name on ramps going into a single ramp does not match. This would help in those situations where someone fixed one ramp to say “to I-75 N / Toledo” but left the other two as “to I- 75 N”.
OK, than again, the wording “Inconsistent roundabout direction - #49 The adjacent roundabout segments have different directions.” does not say so. In my reported case, the segments do have equal directions. And the roundabout does navigate correctly. So, as an editor, I’d either not have the slightest idea, what is actually wrong, or I’d not bother thinking or testing at all and would just discard and redraw the circle.
When he posted that, I was afraid that you’d turned it back on for some reason. 
(Also, I felt that the distinction between the two should be pointed out, even if the map software doesn’t give us a way to map them differently.)
However, if a distinction