kentsmith9 wrote:This change was noticed in October and Jhfronz responded for the motivation in this thread. It appears there was no resolution as to how to update the wording to recognize the group consensus.
jhfronz wrote:Here in the US we have remote-controlled animated signs that can suddenly say "no turns" (when traffic gets weird and the traffic control operations folks want to optimize things), but allow turns the rest of the time.
kentsmith9 wrote:1. Does the group generally agree with the philosophy of the statement that Waze should give the best route and let the user decide if it is legal?
kentsmith9 wrote:2. Is the specific wording "to err on the side of caution is to sometimes recommend an illegal turn"?
kentsmith9 wrote:There are now two questions in my mind:
1. Does the group generally agree with the philosophy of the statement that Waze should give the best route and let the user decide if it is legal?
2. Is the specific wording "to err on the side of caution is to sometimes recommend an illegal turn"?
WeeeZer14 wrote:Until we get time based restrictions, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
therubinator wrote:kentsmith9 wrote:1. Does the group generally agree with the philosophy of the statement that Waze should give the best route and let the user decide if it is legal?
Waze preferably wouldn't direct you into a gaping canyon based on incomplete map information, and shouldn't direct you the wrong way down a one-way street. So why should it direct you into a turn that is illegal 50% of the day and 100% during rush hour?
therubinator wrote:One further point which may be useful to consider: the whole point of time-based restrictions from the point of view of urban traffic management is to control traffic flow and ease congestion (ideally). That said, from Waze's perspective it should already be rated a less than ideal route (assuming the AI is working properly). Blocking it outright wouldn't be the worst thing and would certainly eliminate the possibility of directing the user into an illegal route.
therubinator wrote:So I think there's room for improvement. This approach is black-and-white whereas some amount of discretion could be used. jhfronz's example points out a short-term restriction which, in that case, perhaps makes sense. However, if a more nuanced approach were taken say, given certain conditions then it might avoid confusion (and also make Waze more useful, rather than less, in those situations). For instance, what if the recommendation were to allow the turn if the restriction were:
- not during rush hour (defining rush hour being slightly fuzzy, but based on the area and the volume of traffic - assumes the editor knows the area well)
- not more than 4 hours long (for example)
- not cumulatively more than 12 hours of the day
- not a turn on a single-lane road (just spitballing now)
CBenson wrote:Huh? Waze will route you many many crazy ways based on incomplete map information.
CBenson wrote:In other words, you can make the determination on your own that waze is routing through an illegal turn and ask for alternative routes. There is no way to look at route that doesn't go through a legal turn and determine whether the route that goes through the turn is actually currently faster. I'm not saying that this reason is stronger than the reasons for restricting the turns. I'm just pointing out that a reason does exist.
CBenson wrote:But the decision to restrict a turn from the perspective of urban traffic management is to improve the collective traffic flow. Waze should be attempting to provide the best route for a specific individual.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]