First of all, I’ll check what came out just now. If everything works as it should, we won’t touch it — there is no need to fix what is working well.
When deleting the turn path, two junctions remained that had to be removed. They were deleted using a method I find less than ideal — deleting the junctions themselves — whereas the recommended way in these situations is to delete the short, unnecessary segments and extend the longer ones. This avoids losing the entire edit history of those segments (the only downside is losing the statistics from the short segments, but I think that’s negligible here).
In my opinion, it’s not a matter of “if it works, don’t touch it”; I think we should always edit as best we can and strive for simplicity. Even if an edit has already been made and a simpler method is later discovered, the map should be updated and adapted to it, provided it doesn’t negatively affect anything else. If you don’t want to do it, I have no problem doing it myself.
As I wrote previously, when defining the path for a right-hand exit, it is mandatory to also define a path that continues straight.
The topic is defined in the rules:
6 Repeat the aforementioned actions and define additional paths in such a way that, ultimately, for every divergence in any path from the already defined entry segment (a turn from an intersection along the path that is not the immediate intersection), there exists a path that starts at the entry segment and passes through that divergence
As a wise man once told me: “Anything that doesn’t go against the rules is allowed.”
I checked in the field. Everything is fine, both the display and the voice guidance. I can’t upload a video: “Upload scan failed”
I probably misunderstood the explanations regarding the junctions. It’s just that earlier, still through the forum, after the lock level was lowered to 4 and with approval, I set speed limits by entering virtual junctions. As far as I understand, the history was already reset back then (but the creator of each road segment is indicated). Now there’s nothing left to restore, because the junctions that remained after the AGC removal have already been deleted…
Generally speaking, you’re right. There are guidelines and there are best practices.
We all need to act according to the guidelines and strive within them to fulfill the best practices in the best way possible to ensure the proper operation of the application.
One of these is maintaining map simplicity, and in my opinion, it is clearer and more streamlined when keeping its configuration to the necessary minimum—meaning fewer segments with less data when they aren’t needed. This is also why I suggested removing one path, as I believe every path adds complexity and makes the map harder to understand (it’s another parameter that needs to be analyzed and accounted for).
However, and despite the above, I didn’t initially understand the rule as it was presented, and only after the comment here that led to checking the matter with @zeze13 did I fully understand the meaning of the rule and the instruction within it, and I agree that my proposal, at least at this stage, is against the rules and should not be edited this way. It is possible (and I hope) that I will be able to convince to change the rule and will raise the subject in a formal proposal, separate from this discussion.
Bottom line: just because it’s permitted doesn’t mean it should be done. I am very much in favor of removing barriers and rules when they aren’t needed and giving more discretion to professional map editors. But that doesn’t mean we should flood the map with data and unnecessary configuration just because we can. This is my opinion alone and may not represent the rest of the community members.
Following the rule change, I am once again suggesting the removal of the unnecessary path.
I’m very glad you managed to get this important amendment to the rules, which will undoubtedly make navigation much better. If it’s not too much trouble, please add a link to the updated section in the rules, as is customary on the forum. How urgent is it to fix all the routes across the country?
In my opinion, there is no need to carry out a “campaign” to adapt to the new rule since there is no change in the instructions that will appear in the app. The change in the rule affects only the way routes are created.