Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

[ img ] This is the place to discuss issues that are relevant for locations in the US. For any other discussions, please use the main forums.

Moderator: delilush

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby cbwierda » Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:58 am

Just a thought.

I am a now retired AF MSgt with access to several bases. There are specific conditions that make travel through a base advantageous, but that requires local knowledge, and base access. I figure on Waze as most useful to those that don't have that local knowledge. The user with local knowledge will react based on what they know and just make adjustments in their head for conditions or add the internal waypoint.

For example: with other system, my wife set a waypoint on the 24 hour gate and included that with her route to make sure of entering there.

Cheers,
Traveller
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
cbwierda
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:41 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby vectorspace » Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:17 am

cbwierda wrote:Just a thought. ... There are specific conditions that make travel through a base advantageous, but that requires local knowledge, and base access. ...

For example: with other system, my wife set a waypoint on the 24 hour gate and included that with her route to make sure of entering there.


I agree. I think I suggested that somewhere in this thread -- that someone wanting to route through a base with an external start and stop destination could set a waypoint within the base to route through it. I have not tried it, but will test to see that it works.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby txemt » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:38 am

vectorspace wrote:
cbwierda wrote:Just a thought. ... There are specific conditions that make travel through a base advantageous, but that requires local knowledge, and base access. ...

For example: with other system, my wife set a waypoint on the 24 hour gate and included that with her route to make sure of entering there.


I agree. I think I suggested that somewhere in this thread -- that someone wanting to route through a base with an external start and stop destination could set a waypoint within the base to route through it. I have not tried it, but will test to see that it works.


But not everyone can route through a base. They'll still be stopped at the gate by MPs or security and told "no."
Just wazeting my time to help you waze your route smoothly.
txemt
 
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: 26.1901 80.3659
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby vectorspace » Sat May 04, 2013 1:22 am

A quick update to this thread...

I've been doing a lot of testing on several bases with the suggested new standard approach, and things are working out very well. Txemt has also been working with a number of people on the ground at different bases to do testing. I've fixed up a couple bases that were at basemap status and have been monitoring URs or talking to people on the ground.

I've found that there is smooth routing onto/off-of a base to different gates now. By "smooth" I mean that as I drive around inside the base with a set destination and as I drive around outside the base with an internal destination, the navigation recalculation seems to logically jump to the appropriate gate. I do find some anomaly here with a very distant destination while driving around inside a base -- the same thing we discussed at the 2013 Meetup on routing issues -- the summation of penalties in that long distance means that the preferred exits within a relatively short distance don't matter much.

There is no through routing detected even when we really try to force this. I have some interesting stories from White Sands Missile Range road testing remotely and finding unusual conditions where it will route through the base -- but the reason is some very old basemap road that is not represented correctly. It's hard to test a private installation the size between Delaware and Connecticut!

I've set up a couple of test ranges on KAFB that I can drive around in to test multiple level (nested) privacy. Some are active and real, some are abandoned neighborhoods that had all housing removed but the streets remain. I think I posted the test procedures earlier.

We've developed a few new suggestions for the standard as far as certain type of rarely used gates and marking editor signposts (until that new feature comes for-real from Waze) with short segments of RR track with notes. Specifically where streets should not be connected and locking suggestions. I know txemt is collecting data.

So with that, when I get a chance, I am going to rewrite the suggested standard to simplify and also to add the new things we've found.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby vectorspace » Fri May 17, 2013 6:19 am

Txemt and I have been doing a lot of testing on private installations. At this point, as I reported above as well, I am convinced that the approach that I've been advocating is very workable, provides accurate routing, and allows accurate rendering of road types within private installations that I think meet the intent of what I heard at the Meetup 2013 -- more accurate data in the map.

I continue to test daily through real drives on test ranges and areas to which I have access. Txemt has been working with other Wazers who access different bases in the US, such as in FL. I've also edited some other bases in NM and AZ to this standard and checked URs. We have seen URs but none were tracked to the approach mentioned. I have also been testing once in a while with the approach CBenson mentioned via the client (thanks). I have actually found rogue roads that way on White Sands and bet there are a number more since it is so huge. Even so I have not been able to find through-routing from two external points.

I decided to start editing a draft Wiki page with the approach. I have never edited a Wiki before and it really is arduous. I have not added images yet, but will do so. I've added more techniques from things we have found in bases embedded in cities.

The Wiki page is at http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php?title=Private_Installations if you'd like to take a look.

While there have been dissenting ideas and others positive critique for improvement, I think we should move forward and see if this is a useful detail to make public. Most of the comments I have received have been positive.

Thoughts?
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Fri May 17, 2013 5:47 pm

vectorspace wrote:The Wiki page is at http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php?title=Private_Installations 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. :)
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ
AlanOfTheBerg
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 23621
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 1108 times
Been thanked: 4849 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby txemt » Fri May 17, 2013 6:23 pm

I agree with you on the photos.
Just wazeting my time to help you waze your route smoothly.
txemt
 
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: 26.1901 80.3659
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby CBenson » Fri May 17, 2013 8:45 pm

vectorspace wrote:Thoughts?

My thoughts likely echo some of what I've said previously in this thread, but I'll just say what came to mind as I read the draft. Use the comments for what they are worth.

  • I would consider including a mere "No thru traffic" sign as the minimal access restriction. Thus, the smallest example of a private installation may be a single private community street marked with a "no thru traffic" sign.
  • As may be expected, I don't like the examples of smaller and larger installation. Why are commercial campuses listed as small and large, but not military bases and government installations. The are dozens and dozens of military bases/government installations within Washington, DC. I don't think any of them qualify as larger installations. I'm sure we could debate Bolling, but something like the 8th and I Marine Barracks cannot be considered a larger installation (a moot point I realize as it includes no streets at all).
  • It might be worth it to give some guidance on how big is larger and how small is smaller. Maybe if the installation is 20 miles across it should likely be considered larger.
  • There is no problem with identifying dirt roads on smaller installations. The description should not state that no dirt roads may be identified.
  • Parking lot roads can be used in both smaller installations and larger installations.
  • Another detriment to the smaller installation approach is that every road that is normally routable once admitted to the installation must be changed to private road. Any road segment that is missed will be avoided when routing within the installation.
  • Multiple levels of access are neither difficult nor impossible to implement on smaller installations. Accordingly, multiple levels of access should not be a criteria in the definition of larger installations.
  • I guess I'm not familiar with an airport restricted road network as I don't see why you would need primary streets or highways within the restricted area of an airport.
  • I don't really understand the logic behind the "Potential installations we suggest you not include." For smaller installations I wouldn't mark parking areas as private roads only because I would use parking lot roads for such areas. Under larger installations, why would you not mark publicly accessible roads after a pay station or gate for a theme park private?
  • It might be noted that for larger installations the preferred treatment or alternate treatment must be selected for the entire installation. You cannot mix and match the preferred treatment and alternate treatment on different gates for the same installation.
  • I'm a bit leery of stating that railroad segments should be used as signposts now that the beta livemap sometimes displays these segments.
  • It might be worth it to have an Other Notes / Details section for smaller installations that mentions that rogue street segments or clusters of street segments within an area set to private roads will be avoided similarly to a private road or cluster of private roads within an area of street segments. (Although this may just be repeating the additional detriment to the smaller approach listed above.)
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby CBenson » Fri May 17, 2013 9:55 pm

vectorspace wrote:Txemt and I have been doing a lot of testing on private installations.

Have you guys been testing Fort Bliss? I ask because occasionally I go back to look at the routing there to see how routing on a large base works. However, none of the examples I posted here route well yet.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

Re: Private Installation Roads - gov/mil/public-sector

Postby vectorspace » Fri May 17, 2013 10:19 pm

CBenson wrote:
  • I would consider including a mere "No thru traffic" sign as the minimal access restriction. Thus, the smallest example of a private installation may be a single private community street marked with a "no thru traffic" sign.
  • As may be expected, I don't like the examples of smaller and larger installation. Why are commercial campuses listed as small and large, but not military bases and government installations. The are dozens and dozens of military bases/government installations within Washington, DC. I don't think any of them qualify as larger installations. I'm sure we could debate Bolling, but something like the 8th and I Marine Barracks cannot be considered a larger installation (a moot point I realize as it includes no streets at all).
  • It might be worth it to give some guidance on how big is larger and how small is smaller. Maybe if the installation is 20 miles across it should likely be considered larger.


This is a really good critique. Unless the type of installation is important (and I cannot imagine why it would be) then the size guidelines should predominate. I'll look to adjust the draft. I think some of the ideas are already there, but more work on that would make better guidance.

CBenson wrote:
  • There is no problem with identifying dirt roads on smaller installations. The description should not state that no dirt roads may be identified.
  • Parking lot roads can be used in both smaller installations and larger installations.


I don't understand this comment fully for these two. If a smaller installation by definition is comprised only of private roads, then there is a problem with showing dirt/parking lot roads because they cannot be used. Where did I go wrong understanding this point? One way to address this is to fully expand a small installation procedure that can include private/dirt/parking lot roads, but we never did that and I can see some flaws with this. In addition, it would seem to complicate things significantly. Please explain.

CBenson wrote:
  • Another detriment to the smaller installation approach is that every road that is normally routable once admitted to the installation must be changed to private road. Any road segment that is missed will be avoided when routing within the installation.


Is this really true? From what I heard at the Meetup 2013 and other sources, the penalty is on transition from street to private, not private to street. Perhaps I am wrong or this is not the point you were trying to make?

I have actually used a street-private-street-private four segment arrangement to provide preferential routing to a street-private-street normal gate.

CBenson wrote:
  • Multiple levels of access are neither difficult nor impossible to implement on smaller installations. Accordingly, multiple levels of access should not be a criteria in the definition of larger installations.


The difficulty is that there is no room to implement nested security on a small installation and it is highly unlikely. In my logic, any facility that would actually have multiple levels of perimeter security would be a large installation. I know that we could argue any point here, but one goal is to keep this simple and realize that there will be variations in how and editor chooses to implement this approach. I am trying to keep the guidance simple and allow a lot of latitude to the editor.

CBenson wrote:
  • I guess I'm not familiar with an airport restricted road network as I don't see why you would need primary streets or highways within the restricted area of an airport.


I don't think you do need these road types. I just think any major airport is "large" and it would be a hack to mark all the internal roads as private. Actually I would say these are boarder line large/small, so it is really not worth arguing over. I don't care but think the leeway should be given to the editor. So this is more of a philosophical difference between your prior (and perhaps current) belief that all roads of an installation should be private and

CBenson wrote:
  • I don't really understand the logic behind the "Potential installations we suggest you not include." For smaller installations I wouldn't mark parking areas as private roads only because I would use parking lot roads for such areas. Under larger installations, why would you not mark publicly accessible roads after a pay station or gate for a theme park private?


This is something I put in because I thought about it a while and just made a decision to propose something. Think of Disney World with all the various integrated theme parks. Sometimes there are public roads going to shopping, huge road networks, some areas that are restricted unless you pay to get in, etc. There is so much variation here that I wanted to just leave them all as public roads, and of course parking lot roads where that made sense. My point/logic is that these are sufficiently complex and diverse that a local editor should make a decision on how to make them work and should not consider this guidance as binding.

CBenson wrote:
  • It might be noted that for larger installations the preferred treatment or alternate treatment must be selected for the entire installation. You cannot mix and match the preferred treatment and alternate treatment on different gates for the same installation.


I agree. I thought I did that. I will check. If you did mix, then it would prefer and exit strategy with the split road approach where there is a one way normal road exiting.

CBenson wrote:
  • I'm a bit leery of stating that railroad segments should be used as signposts now that the beta livemap sometimes displays these segments.


Alternative? I have seen other people do this in various places on the map and it has been discussed as a tool in a number of places on the forum (I thought). What does everyone think? At the Meetup, they previewed a signpost tool in the editor that would do this.

CBenson wrote:
  • It might be worth it to have an Other Notes / Details section for smaller installations that mentions that rogue street segments or clusters of street segments within an area set to private roads will be avoided similarly to a private road or cluster of private roads within an area of street segments. (Although this may just be repeating the additional detriment to the smaller approach listed above.)


Good idea. I will see how I can incorporate this without adding redundancy. If you have other notes that should go in such a section, please do it. If you'd like to edit the Wiki page for this, I don't mind.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

PreviousNext

Return to United States

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users