Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

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: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby Spil » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:23 am

shawndoc wrote:FYI, it now shows locked by me because I'm stupid. :oops:

If you're stupid, you're not the only one. Because the lock request was at the bottom of the page (and I didn't see that there was another page), I went there too ... then when I started to lock it, I saw that Shawn and Jason had both locked those segments, so I didn't bother saving my locks. I did go back in, though, and fixed some soft nodes in the parking lot -- so there are a few there with my name on them as well now. Perhaps when the guy sees locks by three different L5's, he'll start to get a clue about that lot. :lol:

EDIT: Maybe I can be helpful -- I fixed that intersection that Dave mentioned while I was typing the above. ;)
I'm Spil, and I approve this message! :D
~ ~ AM: Upstate NY; CM: USA/Canada ~ ~
Wazing the I-86 Corridor with my Casio C771 G'zOne Commando
New York Editors: To-Do List!
Image
Spil
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:50 am

jasonh300 wrote:Those URs are probably from the same troll who kept deleting your Parking Lot roads.
Likely true.

jasonh300 wrote:Unless there's something drastically different there IRL from what the aerials show, there's no way they're getting these errors unless they're using faulty equipment.


As I've noted, I recall seeing that effect... but only when traffic is seriously congested, not when it's still moving.

jasonh300 wrote:Was there a purple track in the UR showing them in the gas station?

No. I rarely see the purple tracks near the URs - for ANY URs. Sometimes they seem to bear some resemblance to the potential problem area, other times, the tracks are so far removed, they're of no value whatsoever.

jasonh300 wrote:You could try splitting it, but if the troll leaving the URs is hell-bent on getting the parking lot roads removed, it's not going to fix anything.


Right, in terms of satisfying the troll. But, if it really does do what I think it will do - eliminate the problem of congested traffic re-snapping to the PLot - then I think it will indeed have fixed something of value for some number of Wazers. Real traffic that's congested will really be reported as congested. And then it will clear up as soon as the congestion is relieved. And gas station customers will not falsely drag down the real traffic, nor will the real congested traffic have to "navigate out of the PLot" which they were never really in in the first place.

jasonh300 wrote:If anything should be split, it should be El Camino Real with all those left turns across a median that can get pretty wide. However, there's no problem there that indicates that anything should be changed either.


Agreed. Don't "fix" something that is neither broken nor being complained about.
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:38 am

kentsmith9 wrote:
DaveHolzmann wrote:Of COURSE Waze will snap to the PLot road in that situation. It's significantly closer to the GPS tracks.

If the Waze driver is following a route, Waze will not snap from the current route unless the GPS track is a significant distance like 50 feet or more from the lane Waze last assumed.


When FOLLOWING a route - that is, while still in motion - I know exactly what you're talking about... have experienced that a number of times myself. (For me it's when heading S on 280 and taking the El Monte exit, while Waze wants to keep me on 280 to 85N.)

However, when traffic gets congested, and comes to a complete halt, as I recall, I have been "snapped" to the PLot road that's closer.

kentsmith9 wrote: Is it possible that the URs you are seeing are from the irritated user who does not think we should be mapping the PLot roads in the first place and he is just trying to disrupt your fun in Waze with these reports? :shock:


Yes, that ^ is definitely a possibility. :roll: But he's not saying (or doing) anything in a way that ties him to comments.

Still, I don't imagine he's the only one who gets frustrated when dealing with congestion and then adding to that the irritation of Waze saying (in essence) "take 2 extra turns to get yourself out of the parking lot I (Waze) have just put you in because you had to stop for a while in the traffic congestion."
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:27 am

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Waze keeps track of the directions and shows which direction is backed up in the app visually.


I saw that just after posting. However, in that particular area it's not at all unusual to have traffic back up completely in one direction and partially in the other... and reverse the ratio at other times. Or be completely clear in one direction and at a virtual standstill in the other. All of this due to the excessive amounts of traffic combined with signals and lanes that can't handle the load.

AlanOfTheBerg wrote: It could add better clarity, especially when it comes to user-posted reports if they include the direction. For these in-town roads, it is not normal to add the cardinal driving direction to the road name when split. Only highway and up get that.


I realize it's not "normal" to split in-town roads. And adding cardinal direction to the road name would undoubtedly confuse more than clarify. BUT... I believe Waze is, in fact, snapping real traffic to the PLot road... when the traffic gets congested. This, in turn, screws up the directions for the driver(s)... especially since there are (appropriately) no names for the PLot roads. And gives cause for URs.

If the road was split, I don't believe the congestion would have the same effect, since the real road would be in the middle of the lanes going each direction. (i.e. Heading NE on Grant toward ECR, when Grant spreads out to 5 lanes, instead of the furthest lane in that direction being 4 lanes away, it would only by 1.5 lanes away... giving the Waze server(s) cause to keep the (semi-parked/congested) vehicles on Grant instead of snapping them to the (closer) PLot road.

A reasonably close area I've seen an in-town road split is just a few miles NW on ECR. So, while it's not considered "normal", it's also not unheard of. :)
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:30 pm

One more thought/question...

By splitting Grant Rd. wouldn't that better-clarify which direction traffic is backed-up?
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:22 pm

Continuing to get URs for this area.

Many of them along the lines of today's "helpful" details: "Moronic editors" and "Street name wrong" (on a PLot road).

I'm convinced the problem is that, while having the PLots mapped does, in fact suppress erroneous traffic info, and does, in fact, help direct traffic to the businesses, the fact that Grant Rd. is mapped with a non-split road makes real traffic snap to the nearest PLot road all too often.

As drivers approach El Camino heading NE on Grant Rd., the road expands to 5 lanes. This means, the Grant Rd segment is 4 lanes away from the slow/right turn lane traffic, while the PLot road in the gas station (where drivers stop to fill up) is the equivalent of 2 lanes away.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=7&lat ... 6,70695383

Also here to a much lesser degree:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=7&lat ... 0,70695591

Of COURSE Waze will snap to the PLot road in that situation. It's significantly closer to the GPS tracks.



I'm equally convinced (now that I've thought about it, and observed Waze and Wazers behaviors) that the best solution is to split Grant Rd. through this entire section:

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... 6,70695383

As I noted before, it will have these advantages:
DaveHolzmann wrote:1) Split Grant Rd.
Arguments in favor:
a) it fits more of the criteria for splitting a road than not: gap at 100m, median requires U-turns
b) it would "spread" Grant Rd so that those on the road would be closer to the Waze "road" than the Waze PLot roads - reducing miss-tracks into the PLots - when they're in the middle or slow lanes.
c) it would improve the usefulness for pretty much ALL users - both those who are seeking to drive past the gas station and shopping center, as well as those who are heading for the gas station or shopping center - and would be better served by door to door directions.

Arguments against:
a) It's a bunch of work - that very well may not be appreciated.
b) It adds some complexity (which while there IRL, is currently not there in Waze' World).
c) It doesn't fit ALL of the criteria for splitting a road: it's not a highway or freeway, while there is the gap in GPS tracks at 100m the median is less than 5m wide, there are some cross-road breaks in the median barrier-wall

DaveHolzmann wrote:I think it may be important to keep in mind that at various times of the day almost every day, this intersection gets EXCEEDINGLY congested.


One more argument in favor:
d) It will allow Waze to "allow" or even suggest U-Turns - which are frequently necessary.

Regarding the arguments against...
a) Editing is "work" - and I'm learning that no matter what we do, it very well may not be appreciated. Appreciation or lack thereof comes with the territory.
b) While it adds complexity to Waze, it will (I'm convinced) simplify the function of Waze for Wazers in this area. A certain amount of complexity is required in order to work properly.
c) The benefits outweigh the (minor) discrepancies between the technically "correct" criteria, and the practical need for splitting the road. I've seen quite a few other situations where roads are split when they're not highways, have far LESS split in the GPS tracks, just as narrow medians, and at least as many cross-road breaks.

The challenge for me is, I don't have a high-enough level for unlocking, editing, and re-locking that stretch of road.
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:42 pm

Back on Jan 13th
kentsmith9 wrote:There are rare instances where we set a turn restriction on a legal turn and that is generally around freeway off ramps to on ramps. This stops the routing engine from thinking that is a bypass route when the freeway is jammed.


It looks like things are heating up again with this area.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=5&lat ... rks=603861

I had started to unlock some of the PLot segments - to get back to the stated goal of not locking PLots. But, as you can see, those segments have been now deleted (again)... including some that have clearly been used recently (according to GPS tracks), both within the PLot as well as a couple of exits (to the NE). (I also find it ironic that the one complaining about PLot roads "clutter(ing) up the map" does so with a completely useless landmark that clutters up the map with a large landmark! This is the same individual who created a landmark for a panhandler.)

Yesterday there were a couple of UR complaining that Waze was routing them through the PLots. (One heading N on Grant being "routed" through the gas station on the corner. The other heading S on Grant being "routed" into and then immediately out of the PLot in the Grant Plaza.)

I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect it's not that Waze is "routing" them through the lots, but rather, they're snapping to the lots and then being re-routed out when they start moving again.

There are three possible solutions that I can think of:

1) Split Grant Rd.
Arguments in favor:
a) it fits more of the criteria for splitting a road than not: gap at 100m, median requires U-turns
b) it would "spread" Grant Rd so that those on the road would be closer to the Waze "road" than the Waze PLot roads - reducing miss-tracks into the PLots - when they're in the middle or slow lanes.
c) it would improve the usefulness for pretty much ALL users - both those who are seeking to drive past the gas station and shopping center, as well as those who are heading for the gas station or shopping center - and would be better served by door to door directions.

Arguments against:
a) It's a bunch of work - that very well may not be appreciated.
b) It adds some complexity (which while there IRL, is currently not there in Waze' World).
c) It doesn't fit ALL of the criteria for splitting a road: it's not a highway or freeway, while there is the gap in GPS tracks at 100m the median is less than 5m wide, there are some cross-road breaks in the median barrier-wall, Google HAS mapped it as a split road - so we shouldn't ;) .

2) Set real and/or proposed/sensible turn restrictions to stop "the routing engine from thinking that is a bypass route when the (roads are) jammed".
Arguments in favor:
a) would fix the "routing" problem - if that really is the problem
b) would be a relatively simple fix to implement

Arguments against:
a) while possibly fitting the spirit of the "law", it certainly wouldn't fit the letter
b) wouldn't do anything about fixing erroneous snapping to PLot, which could in turn create even MORE problems in that the Wazers who are blindly following Waze and paying no attention to the road in front of them would have no idea how to get themselves out of those PLots. :lol:

3) delete all PLot roads, add PLot Landmarks, and say to hell with the whole thing
Arguments in favor:
a) less work than #1
b) may solve the erroneous traffic reports from people in the PLots
c) simplifies the map, reducing drag on Waze server(s)

Arguments against:
a) eliminates door-to-door directions - even as a possibility later, when addresses are working again.
b) more work than #2

According to you who are FAR more experienced than I, which of those (or possibly a 4th, even better) solutions would you recommend?

I think it may be important to keep in mind that at various times of the day almost every day, this intersection gets EXCEEDINGLY congested.
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:37 pm

gettingthere wrote:Why not just use a Parking Lot Landmark if you are concerned about traffic suppression when Wazers are in the lot?


Gonna show my ignorance...

I was not aware that a PLot Landmark would have that effect. I thought it was just a "note" that that's where one would find parking. Not that it would affect traffic patterns/directions/speed. Or put another way, I didn't think Wazers would "snap" to a Landmark.

Is that what you're saying a PLot Landmark would do? Or something similar to that??

gettingthere wrote:Also, unless things have changes if the last segment that a Wazer was on was a Parking lot road traffic reports should be suppressed as long as the Wazer is not snapped to a non parking lot road segment.


Now I'm a bit more confused... are you saying that on PLot roads, directionality of traffic doesn't matter? That Waze doesn't "flag" wrong-way drivers as an automated UR? If so, that seems to fly in the face of what Kent was saying.

gettingthere wrote:Although my long standing opinion is that the client should be less snappy. If a Wazer is driving anywhere that is not mapped there should be no jams created. Should be no need for any of this mapping/landmarking of Parking Lots to avoid false traffic jams. Waze needs to focus more resources on fixing this mess without the community having to over-map.


I think I'm too new to have an educated opinion on this.

The only thing I'd say is, mapping/landmarking PLots is a good place for noobs (like myself) to start because we're not going to negatively impact "real" traffic while we do our hands-on learning. (Some of us learn only so much by reading before we get to MEGO. Getting to work and seeing how things really work (or don't) teaches people like me so much more, and often more quickly. And, if one is destined to make mistakes, it's better to make those mistakes in a PLot than on any "real" street.) If I understand you correctly, if the client was less snappy, PLot work would be even less useful/helpful.
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:23 pm

Kent,
I see what you're saying about directionality within PLots. The perfectionist within me screams "NO!! That's not precisely right!!" But the pragmatist recognizes that (hopefully) people are paying more attention to the real traffic right in front of their face and less attention to their Waze when they're driving slowly through a PLot. And, while accuracy is nice, and good, and important in some situations, there are (sometimes, such as this kind of situation) higher priorities which trump technical accuracy... especially when GPS's are typically only accurate to about 25-50 feet.

I don't know if we'll EVER have conclusive evidence of who "our Sniper" is. But I strongly suspect it's the individual who last edited the Oak Ln segment that connects to Grant Rd. (I can't tell what s/he did to that segment that wasn't already there.)

Thanks again!

Oh, and I certainly HOPE that all this brouhaha over PLots is not the "norm". That would make this particularly un-fun and tedious!
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby RoyaltyWoody » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:35 am

Spil wrote:
shawndoc wrote:FYI, it now shows locked by me because I'm stupid. :oops:

If you're stupid, you're not the only one. Because the lock request was at the bottom of the page (and I didn't see that there was another page), I went there too ... then when I started to lock it, I saw that Shawn and Jason had both locked those segments, so I didn't bother saving my locks. I did go back in, though, and fixed some soft nodes in the parking lot -- so there are a few there with my name on them as well now. Perhaps when the guy sees locks by three different L5's, he'll start to get a clue about that lot. :lol:


No more worries. I've edited my post on the bottom of pg 2 to note that it'd been locked. Hopefully no one else falls into that trap and feel stupid. ;)

Spil wrote:EDIT: Maybe I can be helpful -- I fixed that intersection that Dave mentioned while I was typing the above. ;)


Thanks!
Image
Using Waze on HTC U11
RoyaltyWoody
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:38 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Next

Return to Waze Map Editor

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher