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 gettingthere » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:41 pm

Also be aware that Wazers that are driving in unnamed Parking Lot roads where turns are being instructed will generally have roads that are named announced as the name of the parking lot road where the turn is being instructed. Basically Waze will use the first named road later in the instruction list incorrectly.

This is one of the big problems with mapping parking lots. The directions are then technically incorrect.
gettingthere
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6083
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:30 am
Location: Southern California, USA
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 206 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.
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."
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. :)
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 jasonh300 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:16 pm

Those URs are probably from the same troll who kept deleting your Parking Lot roads. 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.

Grant Road is not in any way a candidate for splitting since it hardly has a median. You're working on the assumption that there's actually a problem with these URs. Was there a purple track in the UR showing them in the gas station? 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.

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.
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: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby kentsmith9 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:09 pm

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. Case in point - the HOV lane down I-680 S from Sunol to Milpitas is currently set to not allow Waze to route drivers into that lane (mainly due to limits in additional controls we need). I have a qualified vehicle for that lane, so I use it all the time. If I have navigation on before I approach the start of that lane, Waze routes me in the standard lanes. When I reach the start of that HOV lane I move into it, but Waze still thinks I am in the standard lane. In fact I have to switch Waze off and back on and restart navigation before Waze will recognize I am actually in the HOV lane.

Now I generally only use Waze with navigation turned on, so I expect it could operate differently with navigation off for selection of lanes. However in those cases even if I am at an intersection with Waze on, if I don't have navigation on I am likely not paying that much attention to where Waze is placing me. 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:
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5274
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1377 times
Been thanked: 1594 times

Re: Contribution frustrated in Mountain View, CA

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 pm

DaveHolzmann wrote:One more thought/question...

By splitting Grant Rd. wouldn't that better-clarify which direction traffic is backed-up?

Waze keeps track of the directions and shows which direction is backed up in the app visually. 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.
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 23598
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 1124 times
Been thanked: 4782 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?
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.
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 gettingthere » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:29 pm

Although with my unscientific study - most time when any Parking lot mapping is done it ends up creating more Update Requests with problems it creates vs. problems it solves. Many times this is due to incorrect mapping and turn restrictions but other times it's just the parking lot mapping in general.

I think some of this is a perception issue. If Wazers don't get direction to the exact location of the POI in the parking lot and they see it's not mapped they understand and find their way. If the lot is mapped they then expect it to work perfectly and when it doesn't they put in an update request.

This also explains why some editors just delete all of the parking lot roads. They often cause more mapping issues in the editor than they solve.

We know that Parking Lot landmarks look ugly in the client and don't suppress traffic jams BUT they do seem to suppress future map problems. A lot of parking lots get mapped since Waze generates a map problem when a Wazer has Waze running when they drive the parking lot from one mapped road to another. This prompts editors to map the lot. When a landmark is placed it stops pointing editors to the lot to map it to supposedly fix a map problem that is auto generated by Waze.

In any case, this whole thing with parking lots, suppressing traffic jams by parking lots, suppressing map problems in parking lots, etc. is a huge waste of editing time by the community. Map it, fix the problems caused by mapping it, delete it, landmark it, lock it, unlock it, delete the landmark, delete the mapped roads just to start all over again. Waze needs to address this and provide a long term fix and better guidance on what level of mapping is necessary for their solution to work properly.
gettingthere
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6083
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:30 am
Location: Southern California, USA
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 206 times

PreviousNext

Return to Waze Map Editor

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LiiiiiCool, MimiTheGr8, NalaKarokaro