Hi,
I’ve got a UR near this Permalink and I assume they’re reporting that they didn’t get the right instruction for the junction. Now I’m aware of curving the main road round when there’s one side road, but what should I do here? Should the 2 side roads come off the same point on the main road or should I separate them to effectively give 2 right turns close together? What would the app say if they were all on the same point?
Thanks
Martin
The “main” road should follow smoothly around the bend with the segments at approx 180° at the junction. It’s a continuous road, so shouldn’t have an instruction.
You can then join the 2 segments with the give-way lines to the junction with kinks at the end, so they come in nearly parallel and give turn instructions for all other directions. Something like this:
Hitting a junction where there is more than one “way” to turn right/left, isn’t that unusual. Coming from the side roads, users will have to check the display for which left/right they need - but at least they get a turn instruction at a give-way, which is the best result.
NB The image may take a little while to appear on the forum 
Agreed on not giving any instruction for drivers following the main road around to the left, less agreed on giving them “turn left” or “turn right” instructions for all routes through the junction that involve entry to/exit from those side roads which would be the case if the junction was redrawn as suggested.
Wouldn’t this be a good example of a junction where “continue” TIOs are appropriate, to make it clear to users that some of the routes through the junction require them to leave the “road ahead”, without actually needing to turn to the left or right in order to do so?
I tend not to agree with that very much. TIOs are problematic, in that they are difficult to see without scripts to highlight them and can therefore make map analysis more difficult. I am also unhappy with use of “continue” at many junctions, where we are effectively using it in the absence of preferred “give way”, “sharp turn”, “shallow turn”, “go straight” instructions.
Functionally, although the main road has a bend in it, it is simply a road with turns on one side. The sharper the bend, the less “correct” turn instructions can look, but there will never be a clear boundary point between when turn instructions are obviously correct and where they are not. That’s why, in cases like this, I prefer to treat them all consistently as turns and the user has to look at the display.
You could just as easily argue that, if a driver approaches this junction from one of the side roads and gets a “continue” instruction, they would see they are reaching a give way, regard it as a turn, and still have to look at the display to see which way to go.
I’ve made some adjustments to the junction - that what you had in mind?
This is a fairly minor road so I don’t think it merits much complexity…
Thanks
Martin
I don’t entirely like the idea of “continue” as a proxy for a “go straight” instruction either, but I dislike it far less than telling users to “turn right” when the route doesn’t require them to actually turn to the right, and especially so when there’s another road present into which a right turn is both physically and legally possible.
I get where you’re coming from regarding the functional description of the junction - clearly it is a “main road with two side roads adjoining on the offside” as far as drivers heading up from the south west are concerned - I’m just not at all convinced that users would fully appreciate this abstract geometry-agnostic approach to assigning routing instructions and therefore understand why Waze is then telling them to make a right turn, when the real world geometry of the junction means that the road they need to enter is straight ahead of them.
But OTOH, I agree that, if the geometry of this junction wasn’t so clear cut, then we’d be into the grey area debate over “how much of a turn is a turn”, so maybe it is better just to have turn left/right instructions for all junctions with such functional arrangements regardless of their geometric layouts. Especially if it’s a junction like this that isn’t likely to generate many URs if we do end up confusing users - if this were a junction in central London though, I’d be far more inclined to fight my corner, or at least leave all the URs for you to deal with 
HI Martin. Yes, that’s exactly what I was getting at. :mrgreen: I don’t know if you ever even saw the image I uploaded - it’s still not displaying for me.
As you can see from the discussion between me and Chris, it’s not really 100% clear-cut over the best way to deal with these. I’m only stating my opinion, not “the rules”. But I’m glad you went with it. :lol:
I did see your image Iain.
Looking at this again though, and thinking some more, wouldn’t it be better to join the 2 side roads at separate points on the main road? Wouldn’t you then get something like take the 2nd right?
Martin
Two problems with that. The first is that you would get a double turn instruction to go from one side road to the other, even though it’s a single manoeuvre. The second is that the segment between the two points will likely end up shorter than 5m, which can cause problems for Waze.