*UPDATED* Ramp naming convention proposal

The place to get information and ask questions about everything to do with properly and successfully editing the Waze Map.

Use this forum for all general editing questions, and the sub-forums for specific types of Waze Map Editor features.

Moderators: Unholy, bextein

Re: Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby bgodette » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:42 am

jasonh300 wrote:I do think each onramp should have a control city, whether it's signed or not. The control city remains the same until you're past that city and then the control city changes. I've always been able to find a sign by an onramp (not EVERY onramp) between major cities to tell me what those control cities should be.
Thorton, CO had to ruin it for you. On either Thorton Pkwy or 120th, the city names for I-25 N/S are Cheyenne, WY and Colorado Springs, respectively. Apparently Longmont, Loveland, Ft Collins and Denver, Castle Rock are too small and unimportant. :lol:
bgodette
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 503 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby jasonh300 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:23 am

jondrush wrote:I thought when we were using a ramp off of a regular road we had agreed to
Exit to I-310: etc.
...
That's what I've been doing here for consistency.


Where are you using that? The only time "Exit to" is supposed to be used is if there's an offramp from a freeway and there's no exit number.

Post a permalink where you've used this...I'm not sure I'm understand what you're saying.
jasonh300
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 402 times
Been thanked: 978 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby jondrush » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:18 am

sketch wrote:shield / shield: city / city
to I-310 N / LA-3127 N: Donaldsonville / New Orleans

shield
to I-10 W

I thought when we were using a ramp off of a regular road we had agreed to
Exit to I-310: etc.
and for when we were turning onto a ramp we were to use
to I-310: etc.

That's what I've been doing here for consistency.
jondrush
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: South Eastern Pennsylvania, USA
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 510 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby sketch » Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:53 pm

No, it's still the double colon. Basically what R4C's post is saying is this:

Each sign has elements from any or all of three groups: exit number, shields, and control cities or street names. The groups will be separated with a colon. Some signs will have more than one of each. When multiple elements exist within one group, these elements will be separated with a slash. To wit,

shield : city
to I-10 W: Baton Rouge [ramp]
I-10 E: New Orleans Business District [pathfinder sign on interstate]

exit number : street name / city
Exit 228: Causeway Blvd / Mandeville

exit number : shield : city / city
Exit 220: I-310 S: Boutte / Houma

shield / shield: city / city
to I-310 N / LA-3127 N: Donaldsonville / New Orleans

shield
to I-10 W

street name / city
to Causeway Blvd / Mandeville

...and so forth.

I will add something to the OP. Good idea.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5849
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1387 times
Been thanked: 1882 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby jasonh300 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:08 pm

So are we dropping the double colon and going to colon then slash?

What about onramps with control cities? I think the last discussion was - to I-##: Cityname

You should add "ANY OBJECTIONS, SPEAK NOW" on your original post title so people will see it and come in and read the final proposal.
jasonh300
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 402 times
Been thanked: 978 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby sketch » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:54 pm

I've done enough testing at this point and I think I've seen enough support to be able to move this forward.

R4CLucky14 wrote:I say we go with the double colon. I'm convinced.

{SIGN}={[EXIT]<SEPERATOR 1>[SHIELDS]<SEPARATOR 1>[CITIES]}

[SHIELDS]=[<SHIELD><SEPARATOR 2><SHIELD>……]

[CITIES]=[<CITY><SEPARATOR 2><CITY>……]

<SEPERATOR 1> = ":"
<SEPARATOR 2> = "/"

Thats how I came to this conclusion.


That's it, broken down in its most basic form.

As for the "to", let's just keep it. It's already there, it's logical, and while it does take up some valuable space, keeping it will save us a lot of time and keep the select all street function easy.

I do propose one other thing that isn't included in conventions, but that was mentioned in this thread: control-city pathfinder signs, the big ones that they put on the interstate when a large number of lanes split off onto another freeway or some other big exit. The format for those would be as follows:

I-10 E: New Orleans Business District

In this case, we don't have a standard, so we don't have to worry about changing up existing labels. Further, using "to" wouldn't be very logical -- since you're already on the indicated road, you're not really going "to" it, you're continuing along it. And this is not a superfluous addition -- there are two locations on my drive to work alone where the left three lanes exit straight ahead onto another freeway, and to stay on I-10, you have to keep and then veer right. Hugely confusing to an unfamiliar driver. I think I've shown these examples before.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5849
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1387 times
Been thanked: 1882 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby jondrush » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:03 pm

I don't like the repeated colon because it barely shows up on my client. Choose something else, please, that make a more robust visual separator on the client display.
jondrush
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: South Eastern Pennsylvania, USA
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 510 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby R4CLucky14 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:50 pm

I say we go with the double colon. I'm convinced.

{SIGN}={[EXIT]<SEPERATOR 1>[SHIELDS]<SEPARATOR 1>[CITIES]}

[SHIELDS]=[<SHIELD><SEPARATOR 2><SHIELD>……]

[CITIES]=[<CITY><SEPARATOR 2><CITY>……]

<SEPERATOR 1> = ":"
<SEPARATOR 2> = "/"

Thats how I came to this conclusion.
R4CLucky14
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:21 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby jasonh300 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:18 am

Well, yeah. There will be 30 different options, and each will get one vote. 8-)

Otherwise, you've hit the nail on the head...all but the last part. Waze already told us that they aren't going to get involved...that it's entirely up to us to decide how to handle this sort of thing.
jasonh300
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 402 times
Been thanked: 978 times

Re: Ramp naming convention proposal

Postby banished » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:05 am

gettingthere wrote:Unfortunately, as with many of these types of proposals - I don't see this going anywhere.

We need to come up with a better process to present a proposal that affects editing standards, some type of formal voting process, and a deadline. Weeks and months of opinions...


Roger that. 'Course then we can have votes on the wording of the proposals as a lead-in to the vote on the proposal, which if approved, Waze can decide to not implement. :D
banished
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:03 am
Has thanked: 215 times
Been thanked: 163 times

Next

Return to Waze Map Editor

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users