[Update] Road Name/USA

With the current release and unknown changes in the app v3.8.1.0, the TTS on road names may have changed as stated by KB_Steveo on the old road name thread:

https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=276&t=42135&start=110#p842026

If the Road names/USA page is still undergoing changes, we should update that page to contain the template:construction format that other pages are using. Also, we need Champs in contact with Waze app Devs to find out how the TTS format has changed in the app so we don’t lose man hours playing around to find the exact format.

It’s always been “Exit right to Exit to Kindergarten Court”. The “Exit to Exit to Kindergarten Court” is new, but the redundancy has always been there, and I’ve heard complaints before too.

Some have been using “Exit: Kindergarten Ct” instead, because it’s more similar to numbered exits. The redundancy is still there, and it’s said like “Exit right to Exit. Kindergarten Court.” or “Exit to Exit. Kindergarten Court.” Still redundant, but also more awkward.

The final option is just to use “to Kindergarten Ct”. Sounds better on TTS (“Exit [right] to Kindergarten Court”), but you lose the “exit” on screen. I think that’s a fair tradeoff, though others may not.

The problem with using one for left exits and another for right exits is that, in attempting to compensate for TTS inconsistency, you create a display inconsistency (where only some exits say “Exit” on screen and others don’t). If we’re not comfortable losing the “Exit” on unnumbered left exits, then we have to keep it on unnumbered right exits.

Before making any big decisions here, we should be sure to get some Californians in on the discussion. If I understand correctly, California still has a huge number of unnumbered exits, so their opinion is valuable.

Hopefully, an upcoming feature will allow us to create an “exit left” command. When that happens, we should reevaluate this question.

(For numbered exits, it says “Exit [right] to Exit 123. Main Street. Anytown.” This is acceptable because you are exiting (verb) to Exit 123 (specific noun). “Exit to 123” wouldn’t make sense, and something like “Take exit 123 on the right to…” would require some modification of the street name string, which Waze has never done, so we have no reason to assume it ever will—that’s not a convincing enough reason to change something that is as simple as it can be currently. For unnumbered exits, on the other hand, the noun tells you no more than the verb does.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Or may have been fabricated in my mind while fixating on the redundancy for years without saying anything… and it was late when I wrote that :wink:

Agreed, I think this is worse since it has redundancy and akwardness.

Yes, I just mentioned it to make sure it wasn’t overlooked in the conversation.

Probably when “continue straight” gets activated? :lol:

Yeah, I remember seeing a bunch in the LA area the other month without numbers.

Moving the word Exit to the end would sound less awkward, though not as consistent with numbered exits. Building on Sketch’s note, “Exit right to Kindergarten Ct Exit” has the verb/noun pairing.

IIRC, TTS ignores parentheticals, so we might look into that.

An alternative for freeways that avoids using the word Exit twice might be “Exit right to Kindergarten Ct ramp.”

There’s no need for anything superfluous tacked on at the end of the string. As you mentioned, it’s inconsistent with other ramp names.

It’s not necessary that there be two nouns in addition to each verb – “turn right on Main St” is fine with only one noun. The problem with “Exit to Exit to Kindergarten Ct” is that the second noun doesn’t add any additional information, whereas the second noun in “Exit to Exit 123: Arnold St” does.

Tacking “exit” onto the end might temper the awkwardness problem, but it doesn’t help with redundancy, and it kills consistency. Simply removing exit (“to Kindergarten Ct”) tempers awkwardness, eliminates redundancy, and while it reduces consistency with exit ramps, it is consistent with onramps – so, on the whole, better.

The question lies in the balance between consistency and awkwardness/redundancy, and apparently in the past we have decided that consistency with numbered exits is more important. I don’t think I’d personally answer it the same way, but that’s how it is.

Oh, TTS doesn’t ignore parentheticals. It does pause before them, not sure if it does so afterwards as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

We’ve been dumping EXIT on unnumbered exits. It just works better all around.

I agree that simply removing “Exit” seems the best course of action. The current rule (“Exit to Kindergarten Ct”) was written in October 2009, long before Waze had TTS at all.

What I have seen in California, if the exit has a number then it is “Exit ###: _____ ____” else it is coded as “to _____ ____”
with the TTS running it sound funny - exit exit to ______ ______ that is one reason I have been removing the exit from unnumbered exits.

I concur.

Just to be clear, we are talking about un-signed exit numbers, correct? I don’t want someone to misunderstand, visit the CalTrans page for exit numbers and think that this doesn’t apply to the ones which have theoretical exit numbers, but do not have signage as of yet. What we are saying is that if there is no exit number on the BGS or a stand-alone sign, then we are leaving off “Exit” from the ramp name unless or until the number is posted.

That is precisely what I mean, correct. Even if the exit number is only on one sign, past the theoretical gore of the exit, it is worth including on the Waze segment. If it’s not signed at all, then don’t include it.

So, I move to change the rule for unnumbered exits (i.e., exits signed exclusively without numbers) from “Exit to Kindergarten Ct” to “to Kindergarten Ct”.

I agree and that will also be consistent with on ramps, so it shouldn’t seem foreign to anyone.

Also, Is there a reason for this

Uppercase letters work just fine.

Someone on this thread said they would like to hear from some Californians. I am one.

My friends and I never use Exit numbers. I think the Federal government insisted the state add them to keep Federal highway dollars coming. In Santa Barbara the small exit sign right next to the gore now has numbers; but, we are most likely to miss them as the numbers are not on the large signs.

We drove in the Los Angeles/Pasadena area a couple of days ago and were surprised to see not one exit number on any sign, even the small ones at the gore.

In light of this, I have a suggestion:

Instead of saying, “Take exit 93, Carrillo Street…” why not say “Take Carrillo Street, Exit 95…” if you must say the exit number? In other words, put the exit number last, because it is the least important.

Just suggesting.

This is in contrast however to much of the rest of the country, where exit numbers are prominently displayed, and likely to be used in giving someone directions.

  • While it may true in the CA situation, that exit numbers (currently) are of little consequence, they still warrant being mentioned, as some people may use them.
  • Even though these numbers are placed oddly and seem to be an afterthought, these are similar to naming exits with numbers, before the actual signs are even in place.
  • Placing them at the end of the name may work in CA, but would be inconsistent.
  • The rest of the USA has exit numbers (rightfully so IMHO) at the beginning of the name, and there should be one standard used throughout the country, for the sake of consistency and uniformity to Waze users.

If it is determined (and I think it should be) that these exit numbers be used in Waze, even though they seem to be placed as an afterthought, then they should use the same guidelines as the rest of the country.

Ottonomy, I am confused by your statement. When I read it I see conflicting recommendation.

I disagree that we should remove exit numbers from the exits if the DOT has an exit number assigned, but the BGS has not yet posted it. I am constantly seeing new BGSs getting updated in the bay area that are now including the exit numbers. I personally spent months going through hundreds and hundreds of exits on the interstates in northern CA to add the numbered exit to the ramp name per CalTrans data. Some exits had the signs, and some did not yet (or it was knocked down or missing when the local image was taken).

We often have names on Ramps that include data from multiple signs that lead up to that actual gore point and exit numbers can certainly be one of them.

We have been told to exhaust efforts to get Waze devs to support the map as it is before making wholesale changes across the country to work around issues with the underlying servers. If there is a problem with the TTS, with exit numbers, then we should get it fixed.

Hopefully I am not missing something here and arguing the wrong point. :oops:

I can agree that we maybe shouldn’t remove exit numbers from currently-unsigned-numbered exits, but maybe we shouldn’t scramble to add them, either? I dunno. If we have enough attentive editors in the LA and SF areas, we’ll notice pretty quickly once the signs actually go up. When the first numbers were added to the last few exits on US-90 BUS here, I had each of them up within a week, but then again I pass those exits on the way to work. Y’all’ll be able to get the numbers up promptly, I imagine.

Or maybe that doesn’t work so well in such a large area where there are more freeways than you can count on one hand…

I don’t know how CalTrans work’s, but for the Arizona Dept. of Trans (ADOT or AZDOT) since all sings on highways are controlled by them, they always place alerts as to when signs will go up or change. That is why I signed up to get every email alert, in real-time, for every highway.

I’m sure CalTrans has some sort of information hub that would list this or a project page that is tracking a mass change of signs. :?: :?: :?: :?:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry. You said CalTrans has update information.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

California has 129 (if I did not miss any) numbered highways with exit numbers on all exits. Each roadway has 1 to 18 pages of exits with up to 25 exits per page for each direction. I-5 and US-101 are the 2 longest of the CA roadways at nearly 800 miles long.

Taking only I-5, US-101, and SR-99 and you get 44 pages x 25 x 2 = 2,200 exits on those three roadways alone.
Assuming the rest only had 1 page per roadway average and for only a single direction that is 126 x 25 = 3,150 additional ramps. That is no less than about 5,350 ramps to check/change.

Pay me $100/hour and you have a deal. Otherwise don’t touch the exits with numbers that I already put in there. :twisted:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Mother of God!!!

That’s insane. Man, we editors in Arizona have it made. ADOT even has a pdf map of locations for all their exits. All nice and organized. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think we got a little off track. We were looking for the Californians’ opinion on how unnumbered exits are handled before changing the wiki. i.e. changing from “Exit to Kindergarten Ct” to “to Kindergarten Ct”.

IMO, If you have already taken the time to find what the exit number is supposed/going to be, I would definitely leave it. When I was last in the Orange County area, speaking as an out of state driver, even when the exit number was only at the gore, it definitely was nice to know that I was going the right way, particularly at/near some of the larger interchanges.