vectorspace wrote:The Wiki page is at http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php?titl ... tallations if you'd like to take a look.

I don't have experience with these large installations (yet) but from what I've read in the wiki page seems very well thought out and reasonable.

As it gets tweaked and more robust, I would also suggest adding screenshots and examples of the types of dual 1-way entrance/exits of each type of installation, permalinks to example installations which are functioning as expected, etc. It's good not only because visuals can convey a lot of information quickly, but it helps to break up the visual monotony of long pages of text.

CBenson wrote:The fundamental feature of private roads is that there is a very high penalty to route from another road type to a private road segment.

Slight correction: the penalty to route OFF a private road segment to a non-private road segment, not on. Same for parking lots.

sketch wrote:

AlanOfTheBerg wrote: Slight correction: the penalty to route OFF a private road segment to a non-private road segment, not on. Same for parking lots.

So the penalty is only incurred when transitioning FROM a private segment TO a non-private segment? Or is it from a private segment to ANY segment, or what?

It is just as I wrote. That is what we have been told. If it were to any segment (private included) then it would be the same as it was prior, with penalties growing with each transition and that's what used to cause Waze to violate turn restrictions in an attempt to avoid multiple private roads and parking lot segments alike.

I've talked with a few others that were at the meetup, and since this is an atypical situation (many military bases only have one level of drive-on security), it needs to be considered on a case by case basis. I don't have any objections to doing this as long as it is tested and verified that it works.

This shouldn't be publicized much as doing this is the exception, rather than the rule, or at the minimum noted as such..

vectorspace wrote:(1) This is an uncommon situation.

I don’t see this as uncommon or atypical at all, but suppose it depends on how you define that. There are private installations all over the place but their total road area is small compared to the rest of the world. Look at my list. This doesn’t mean we couldn’t use a standard. The most complex ones are probably military bases and gov areas, but all the others I listed are important. I forgot to also mention airports, so just edited that in. The simpler ones are gated communities. There are bunches of these. If this is uncommon or atypical, as some of you have said, what is your logic around that position?

I really think we could use some guidance because this is not uncommon. If we treat gated communities differently, that’s fine, but I really don’t agree with the (B) approach as it requires maintaining many private roads, not just one or two at entrances. It doesn’t seem nearly as elegant and simple as (A).

The vast majority of these private complexes are gated communities, corporate campuses - all with out multiple layers of security. Once you are in a gated community, you can drive anywhere in the complex. Those should be maintained with the current standard. As for this proposal, assuming it has been tested & works, it needs to be something that is evaluated & done on a case-by-case basis by senior editors because security levels is going to get complicated.

vectorspace wrote:(4) Concentric security zones are uncommon on bases.

This hasn’t been my experience. I have been on bases all over the US. Most have at least two levels. Three is rare but does happen. Usually it is two levels with the first being general access then a bunch of level-2 zones within. I do agree that there are some smaller installations that have one zone. With the influence of consolidating bases, many bases now hold multiple organizations, all with their own zones of security. In some cases that’s just a building, but in many it is a whole campus or set of roads. Testing this doesn’t require the ability to drive, but I have that ability so can test options.

When there is just one zone, another issue is that the larger installations are huge. Using (B) seems impractical. I wouldn’t want to map everything as private on a larger installation. It doesn’t seem like the right use of private roads either. In addition, as I mentioned in my original post, use of private roads only will keep us from using primary streets, highways, etc. The larger installations have highways!

How do these multiple layers of security work? Is the second layer to just get into a small set of roads where one would park for access to buildings or does the second layer contain miles of roads? If it's the first, why not use parking lot roads?

vectorspace wrote:(5) This is an exception and should only be applied to “very large” installations.

If so, what is large? How would you define that?

Well, those large enough to have multiple security zones.

vectorspace wrote:I also don’t understand why we would not publicize this. We ought to have good documentation on all special cases so we know how they are treated. Wouldn’t publicizing it make things better? If not, I would like to understand what experience has lead one to believe not documenting an approach like this is a good thing. I am always seeing chaos on forums and elsewhere because there is no standard to reference. Doesn’t mean everyone is going to follow it anyway!

Since it would have to be the exception rather than the rule, it would have to be noted as such. Something like a subsection on the wiki page that says something along the lines of "In the case of a large military installation with multiple layers of security (higher level security zones once past the base gate), a method has been created to deal with this situation. These areas have been mapped in a very specific manner by Senior Area Managers and Country Managers to prevent Waze from routing through them. For more information please contact your Senior Area Manager, a Local Country Manager, or your Regional Coordinator."

vectorspace wrote:

CBenson wrote:...Primary streets are used to show the best route through town. The whole point of the discussion is waze should not be routing through the base. ...

I think this point and some made by AndyPoms may be one of the root issues of disagreement. You both somewhat indicated that the whole point is NOT to route through the base. I disagree, and extend that to any installation.

There are a lot of people that work on these facilities (gov or private-sector) or live there too. Bases house our military families. Are we supposed to ignore these people?

I would think just like us, they would want to route to and from their home and work. They would like to have the most efficient routing and traffic help on an "installation" particularly for really large ones. Don't we want to help them too?

If you agree that is something we should do, then just saying our purpose is to avoid routing the general public there is not quite as clear, and something to which I disagree. I agree we want to not route the general public through one of these, but even if we consider that primary, a very close secondary is serving the people that work and live on these installations.

There are four situations in routing when dealing with Private facilities.
1) Entering - Starting outside secure area, destination inside.
2) Exiting - Starting inside secure area, destination outside.
3) Through - Starting & ending outside secure area.
4) Internal - Starting & ending inside secure area.

With the existing system of all roads being private, all 4 systems will work without a problem. It allows routing onto and off of the base. It will prevent routing through the base - this will prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing secure areas. It allows routing internal to the base.

The issue is only with facilities with extra security levels.

You still haven't answered my question from above:

AndyPoms wrote:How do these multiple layers of security work? Is the second layer to just get into a small set of roads where one would park for access to buildings or does the second layer contain miles of roads? If it's the first, why not use parking lot roads?

In the last few weeks (since this was proposed), I've worked with two different users on two different private facilities (one was a military base) where routing broke for them. The problem was that the entire facility was not marked as private, only gates were & Waze was constantly routing them to the wrong entrance (i.e. had to go halfway around the base to the other side to enter, when there was a gate that was right at their location).

I think simple, single layer security facilities should be kept fully private (as the current rules state), and while I think testing this idea for multi-layer security is a good idea, I'm not convinced it's something we need to pursue.

My experience using private roads on military installations is straightforward. Only set the inbound gate entrances to private.

If you are outside the installation and your destination is outside the installation, Waze will route around it.

If you are outside the installation and your destination is inside the installation, Waze will route across the private road.

My car navigation system does the same thing, except it actually tells me my destination is on a gated road and asks if that's OK.

Nuts. I spent hours working on a more detailed input yesterday & posted it...or thought I did, but now don't see it.

==================

So I finally am able to set aside some time and read through most of this thread. I’m sure I didn’t catch every point or nuance of the discussion, but I hope to add something useful. I will focus solely on DoD installations, not DoE or other agencies.

Whatever the final decision, please try to keep it simple, which is to say exceptions to the rules should be few and far between. If exceptions start to outnumber the rules, then the rules are flawed.

Zip Codes. There’s no consistency as to whether or not an installation has its own zip code. Fort Carson and Fort Hood do not; Fort Benning, does. Go figure. So zip codes should not be a factor in your rule development.
====================
For installations near me (banished’s standard operating procedures...for now):

- I made only the inbound gate segments private. Everything is working fine with routing based on that simple practice.

- For roads internal to the installations, I have set the type according to the speed limit so that auto-zoom doesn’t cause higher speed roads to disappear. Works well; no URs from users.

- If the installation is hundreds of square miles large (e.g., Edwards AFB, CA), I only would label the segments in and very near the center part of the installation with the city name, “Edwards AFB.” This is consistent with the way things are presently with any other city. Nearby city names overlapping (floating) into the installation I’m not concerned about because we really don’t have much control over it Waze's placement.

- I no longer label military installation as landmarks. See following comments.

- I no longer add/identify ANYTHING internal to an installation. See following OPSEC comments.

=================

Landmarks.

- Swayed by the preceding discussion, military installations are not landmarks unless it’s a historical military site, such as Fort Sumter, Gettysburg, etc. But really, those are Tourist Site / Attractions. It is confusing to have “Military Site” listed under the landmark subsection “Public Service.” There’s nothing “public” about a restricted access installation. Recommend “Military Site” be removed from the list of landmarks. Restricted areas are not landmarks…which means I will change my own behavior because I’ve marked some as such, too.

- The argument that they are not landmarks is strengthened if the installation has its own zip code. That’s what really convinced me, but even if it doesn’t have its own zipcode, there’s a plethora of towns/settlements labeled in Waze that don’t have their own zip code, either. We don’t – or haven’t been – making them landmarks, so suggest this is no different. Not labeling an installation as a landmark has no effect on navigation if at least one road segment has the name of the installation in the city field, just like any other town without a zip code.

- Small military sites without a zip code, such as a Marine barracks in the middle of DC, are not landmarks, either. Nor are they towns/settlements. They should not be labeled at all but for the normal non-descriptive address (house) number. If you need to know why I think that, then I trust you will not required a better reason than the terrorist attacks on Khobar Towers (1996) – some of whom died & injured were my personal friends & colleagues – or the Marine barracks in Beruit (1983), then I cannot convince you otherwise. See my OPSEC comments, which follow.

- Landmarking highly secure zones within an installation, like a munitions storage area, are also an OPSEC issue and should never be done.


Operational Security (OPSEC). Sorry if this makes anyone angry...

Those that work on DoD installations have a responsibility that supersedes their “responsibility” to Waze, and must delete (from Waze) any landmark or other object that isn’t public knowledge. In general, “public knowledge” is only what the installation’s Public Affairs office publishes on the installation map (Distribution Code A, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/submit/guidanc ... ement.html). All the installation maps I’ve ever seen only show a building number, not a street address or the name of the unit/squadron located there. Public information (e.g. web sites) use a building number to give directions, not the street address. For any editor to know the building numbers, they need that installation’s map and usually the only place to get it is on the installation. The maps are not published online, even if they are Code A, so even building numbers should not be in Waze. Depending on the severity of the OPSEC violation, the editor who discovers it may decide to report it to appropriate authorities.

Therefore, I suggest the best course of action is to not identify ANYTYHING internal to an installation in Waze. Not the gas station, BX/PX (Army Air Force Exchange Service), shoppette, commissary, billeting, hospital, clinic, barracks…nothing. I know that isn't the direction we've been headed, but having a physical piece of paper installation map in your hand is not the same as publishing it in Waze. It should only be considered if the building number location is published on the Public Affairs web site. Each service's web sites can be found at af.mil, army.mil, navy.mil, marines.mil, or uscg.mil.

To keep it simple, we need to follow Public Affairs lead. I really hope your final ruleset does just that. I've already had to delete another editor's landmark because it identified the organization in the building and that organization is responsible for some rather important national assets. I think the only thing safely out of the OPSEC realm might be concessionaires like Taco Bell or Burger King that exist on many installations.

Best,
banished (Rob)

txemt wrote:I understand the open roads on some bases, but when you come to a gate, I believe the state road designation ends there.

Incorrect. I must formerly ask you (txemt) to stop editing in or on approaches to military installations. You created problems in areas that were mature...places I travel almost daily.

daknife, I do not believe a change is needed based on the information in this thread.