I noticed during my morning drive to campus that the exit name should be altered to Wiki guidelines. It’s locked, otherwise, I would do it:
Should be named:
Exit 1C: State Hwy 58 N / 4th Street / Downtown
Unlocked.
FYI I’ve been using the format of “SR-58 N” for ramps with good results along I-40 and I-75. Not sure if you’ve driven through any of those exits to get an impression?
No, I haven’t . Does the TTS say “State Route”?
I take it that this section in the wiki does not mean State Routes should be referred to as State Highways (for clarification):
Yes, TTS says State Route. (or Road. Sometimes I can’t tell which.)
The bit in the wiki mentions TN and NJ in that paragraph… do you want to guess who’s comments in the forums led to that being put into the wiki 
But that was from a while ago and I didn’t even remember that was in there.
Most people call everything a highway in TN from my experience (does your experience agree?). But the mobile construction signs seem to always indicate closures and detours using the format “SR-xx” or “SR xx”.
For now if I edit a ramp I’m using SR-xx since it is so much shorter than “State Hwy”. Many ramps I use would basically just show the “State Hwy xx” bit because nothing else would fix on screen.
Of course it is all a moot point if we get Waze to handle using “TN-xx” instead. I’m not telling you to change everything, just warning you that you may see the SR format as well.
Oh, you know I can change everything, considering the Wiki states that local names should be used (which I need to double check US-411 on my way up this weekend). So most state routes have local names in the areas I have edited. I love using numbers. They make sense and order more than Atlanta’s choice of road names. 
So yeah, I don’t have any State Routes I named as State Hwy ##. They’re all basemap local names 
But SR-## works, is smaller, and, in this case, will grow consistency. We need to come up with a Wiki page for Tennessee guidelines at this rate.
One approach is that the highways should have the local name through towns and the route number outside of towns. But the best guide is to use what will make sense out in the field. If you come to an intersection and the street signs all say “Main St”, Waze telling you to “turn left onto State Hwy 123” may not be helpful.
A lot of this again comes to the improvements in shield generation that we want and need. We should be able to give it a name AND have a shield.
I’m up for working on a wiki page if you want to help 
We just need to identify all the guidelines which seems to be the problem most of the time 
I will most certainly help with coming up with a Wiki page.
Speaking of problems, I came up with this horribly weird idea, but I think it’s against every guideline in the Wiki. Anyway, I drew up a quick example of two divided highway intersecting (I drew it in the backyard of Maryville College). If it works as I think it would, there would be no more than two junctions, no matter which direction someone is coming from or leaving. Would this actually work in attempting to cut down on junctions?
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lat=35.74902&lon=-83.9556&layers=BTTFTTTFTTFTTTTTTTTTFT
I’ve had that idea in the past too – give up on physical representation and go with logical. Solves some problems, but it is complex. Many have wished we had a “black box” junction polygon to use in these situations so we don’t have to build something like this ourselves.
We do have to be careful with angles and locations… right now I think the left hand turns will give you a “keep left” way before the intersection. You can tweak the geometry to get a “turn left”, but it will still be before the intersection. Which could be argued to confuse some drivers who would think we were telling them to turn onto the wrong roadway.
There are other such manipulations that are sometimes necessary. Search “Mapcat Bowtie” or “Banished Junction” (which banished calls the “Jason Junction” after I made improvements to it).
Yours is similar to a one-level Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI).
I’ve done mapcot bowties, rather a lot. However, to me, they look really ugly (not saying that what I have is better, but to me, personally, it looks better), and the opportunity cost, if there is slip lanes, is higher, as you have the outgoing slip lane, the middle intersection, and in the incoming slip lane. That’s three junctions, whereas this has two. However, if there are no slip lanes, then mapcot bowties are much more efficient in terms of cost (of junctions), as mine would have two, where as a mapcot bowtie would only have one.
I’m gonna put it at the intersection of US-129 and US-321 and see how it does, unless there’s a reason not to?
In addition to what the others suggested, you may have some potential problems with this due to having the same level for your “Test E” and “Test W” that you have for “Test N” and “Test S”, as well as having the same level for all the “Test Lane” segments. I recall reading somewhere that even if you have not physically created a junction where these cross each other, as long as they’re on the same level, Waze may attempt to route them as if a junction existed. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on that, but I’m pretty sure that I read that somewhere here, just don’t have the time to look for it right now.)
Thus, each segment that crosses another segment in the center of that spaghetti needs to be a different level than the segments that it crosses. Here’s one (relatively) simple way to do that:
- Test E to Test N lane and Test W to Test S lane: level 0
- Test S to Test E lane and Test N to Test W lane: level 1
- Test E and Test W: level 2
- Test N and Test S: level 3
Good to know. I wasn’t sure if that was the case or not, but if there is even a possibility, best to avoid it, right?
I think the fear was that Waze would automatically create a junction if they were on the same level.
I’m not drunk…I’m using Tapatalk.
At a minimum I think Waze may autodetect a problem and throw a pin on the map if two roads are at the same level. And with an intersection like that and the, ahem, quality GPS chips in phones, you know there will eventually be a path that looks to go from every segment to every other segment
At this intersection, the left turn lanes (esp. for 129) exist for a little before it would say “Turn Left.”
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=7&lat=35.74979&lon=-83.99468&layers=BTTFTTTFTTFTTTTTTTTTFT
Yes, at that intersection there are dedicated turn lanes that you must commit to in advance, so the “premature” warning may be exactly what we want.
Could I make an exception and change the left turn lanes to ramps? It would definitely look better to my eyes, lol. Not like I haven’t broken every rule in the Wiki just drawing this during Math class. Or would that mess with TTS in an unexpected way?
It looks messy in the editor, but on the client it may just appear as a solid blob of roads. I think it may actually look worse on the client if we mix road types.
Probably should wait until this current form ends up on the client maps and see how it looks/performs before making further changes.
Oh, and I’d probably move some of those turn lanes further away from the intersection. I try to put the junctions closer to the point of commitment. Right now you have many of them start after the person would have needed to get into the proper lane.
Wilco.