foxitrot wrote: As to the U-turn instructions - no, Waze still does not support it at all and its presence in the route is ... confusing

Hi,

I tested a few more times. Waze client also routed me through the gate once, but most of the time it handles the u-turn as a u-turn. It assume the times when Waze routes through the gate may be a glitch, as it does what it should with the u-turn most of the time.

I agree, the u-turn is confusing, but only because of the way the Waze client handles u-turns. It would be much better if the client could issue a proper u-turn instruction where u-turns are placed.

If we accept that this is the way that Waze handles u-turns, then I think it is still better to place a u-turn at "resident only" gates, versus not placing it. With the addition of a u-turn, at least the route stops before the gate most of the times, and users should interpret this as a u-turn. If no u-turn is placed, the Waze client routes through the "residents only" gate when one is on the last segment before the gate.

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Igmar

Sorry guys, I'm a bit late to this convo so 2 things (actually 3):

#1. Thanks Kyle. I agree that we need an update or overhaul to the local Wiki to include the TBTRs and how to properly handle gated communities using a combo of time restrictions and private roads as required. In fact, a slightly larger Wiki overhaul & restructure might apply.
#2. Is the rest just below afterthought no 3...
#3. Any volunteers with some wiki-foo for the above 'task' ?

I unfortunately missed the offending segments. Were they locked at Level 6 or last updated by admin(6), or did they just not allow any updating ? We should have very few Level 6 locks or even admin(6) edited segments, and even if last edited by admin, anyone with an editor level/rank >= lock level should be able to edit them.

I have not seen local 'road rankings' or any info on whether it is getting applied yet, but the last couple of WME Color Highlight versions does show the 'Segment Rank' in the left tab below the average speeds. The road ranks if/when implemented, are supposed to automatically lock specific road types at specific levels based on the amount of traffic & the importance of the segment types, but like I said, I've not seen any evidence locally yet.

If they were 'ghost segments' they were likely affected by recent updates in the area like the toll flagging updates on the adjacent N1 or even the edits to Darlington on the 1st. The more recent suggestion from Waze support for fixing ghost segments are to do minor updates in the area which would force a tile update on the next map build, and then to check it again after a confirmed map update. Support is less likely to just delete offending segments for us nowadays, as the updates usually fixes them.
My assumption is that the ghost segment part is most likely relevant to what Igmar experienced.

FTP13 wrote:internal roads are marked as "Street", the naming structure stays the same.

Looking at the area and access to it, you can still type them all as 'Private' to prevent any external routing through the area between Darlington and Lindfield, but keep the Private<->Street<->Private penalty for non-residential access.
Anyhow, the entrances are probably live as-is at the moment so lets see what you experience in it's current form. You might have to wait for the next update that include edits for today to get the full effect if the previous connections allowed free access.

Cheers

FTP13 wrote:Can anyone tell me if the length of the private road sections at the "main gate" and the "residents only" gate could influence the routing? If I increase the total length of the two private road sections at the residents only gate, to be longer in length than the private road section at the "main gate", would it increase the routing penalty at the "residents only" gate?

As far as I know the segment lengths would not affect the 'extra' applied penalty. The length will only factor if one route is much longer around in travel time than the next. The penalty is applied from the transition of specific types of road to another type.
The wiki indicates that private road->street or parking lot->street transitions would get an extra penalty applied.

If I test a route between these 2 segments, I get routed around to the normal gate, but if I route between these 2, the penalties are equal for both, so the shorter distance via the 'tenants only' gate seems to win. It seems like the 'double' penalty incurs too high a penalty value in this case. Testing routing it to other roads around the area from that small private road segment seems to give wonky routes, as none of them goes out the normal gate. Even if I route to very close to the gate with distances of ~1644m via Meiring Naude->Lynburn vs. ~1170m on Darlington->Charbury->Dorking->Lindfield. This is likely due to the higher average speed data for Meiring Naude & Lynburn vs the internal streets and especially the Lindfield private segment at the gate, which shows an average speed of a whopping 0 km/h for both directions, probably due to wait times at the gate. I think that single factor might remain a problem forever, unless no-one actually used Waze through there yet. I do not see any GPS tracks on any segments there, but the averages for most of the other roads seems populated ok.

You might want to check the option of defining the internal roads as 'private' and just have an extra private->street transition on the resident only access section in Darlington. This should reduce the overall penalty when all from here inwards are set as private.

Do all residents get the option of a remote control, or just some that are closer to the private gate ?

FTP13 wrote:I checked that on the Live map and get the same results as you - routing through the main gate. However, if I use the Waze client, park on Darlington on this segment, and ask Waze to route to Meiring Naude or to the N1, then Waze takes me trough the tenant gate and not through the main gate as is the case with the Live Map. If i go just around the corner into Charbury, then the Waze client routes through the main gate.

Igmar,

If you drive westward on the Darlington segment indicated and then use the client, it takes your last direction of travel into consideration. At that point it will determine that you have no other option but to route through the residents-only section despite the higher penalty, since you have no valid u-turn point or other 'escape'.
The Livemap routing or Timbones' WME Route Tester merely asks a route from point A to point B with no previous direction of travel brought into the equation.

Just as an FYI, this is the normal client behaviour : When you arrive at a destination and switch off the client, your direction of arrival is stored. Next time the client starts up, it will attempt to route you out in the same direction you originally arrived in, even if it's not the shortest route. This behaviour is somewhat nonsensical and tends to drive most people nuts. Include me in that category as Waze would always try to recalc my route with the network still in limbo between deciding if I'm actually still on Wi-Fi or on 3G.

As foxitrot stated, the short is that no MPs would be generated if you or other tenants do drive in and out via the tenants gate, but the routing for a non-tenant should force them through the main gate as it stands, so will work for the bulk of the people NOT familiar with the area.

If I navigate to Charbury on my client, I get a route via the main gate & if I add one of the short stubs (not sure which one I was able to tag) as a "Stop Point", I go via the tenants only gate. This method was suggested elsewhere in the forum for tenants that always want a route via a non-public entrance that should not be permanently disconnected.
The same holds true if I set Charbury as a start point & navigate somewhere, and then add my "Stop Point" - I get a route out via the tenants gate.


Carel

foxitrot wrote:Could you try one more change? To create a u-turn just in front of the resident only gate.

That would likely do the trick & work quite well for visitors on the related segments just on the inside of tenant only gates.


Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Phreewil wrote:Could someone post an example of this private-nonprivate-private triple heart bypass thingy, please? I think I understand but would like to see it on a map, just to make sure. Thanks.

Hi David. You can see an example of that particular one if you click this link.

The two separate private segments are the 2 that are selected in this link.

elphix wrote: All internal roads are to be marked as "Private road", the naming structure stays the same.

In some cases, the limited-access area is quite large; in these cases, I've just been marking the entrance roads as "Private road", and leaving the internal roads alone. Ihis results in the same thing for routing (Waze won't attempt to route you *through* the area, but can still route you to somewhere *in* the area), but it's a lot less error-prone. If you try to mark every road as private, but miss one or two, then routing within the area will get pretty weird.

I think I agree with everything else you said; the issue of incorrect routing for residents where resident-only roads exist is unfortunate, but I think we ultimately have to do what gives correct routing for the majority of people. That said, in cases where an area is *only* resident-access, I think it's okay to simply mark the roads as Private Road rather than turn-restricting them; the problem comes in when both types of access (resident-only and public) are present.

FTP13 wrote: If we accept that this is the way that Waze handles u-turns, then I think it is still better to place a u-turn at "resident only" gates, versus not placing it. With the addition of a u-turn, at least the route stops before the gate most of the times, and users should interpret this as a u-turn. If no u-turn is placed, the Waze client routes through the "residents only" gate when one is on the last segment before the gate.

Any thoughts?

I would say that a slightly confusing u-turn routing is better than waze trying to route thru a gate that's not going to open.

Hi Kyle,

Yes sir thank you for pioneering a standard in this regard.
I mostly agree with your proposal and thx for referencing some great examples.

foxirot wrote:
You could try to test a Private-nonPrivate-Private triple-segment to double rise the penalty for residents-only entrances, in contrast to a single Private segment's penalty for public entrances.

I quite like the above triple-segment suggestion, it sure is worth a shot.

Hi everyone...

elphix wrote:I've noticed an increase in the ways editors are handling gated communities - unfortunately it seems our wiki is lacking this section. I propose we amend it detailing how editors should go about adding them with regards to entrances and the likes. Please comment on my proposal below.

...

Someone brought this thread to my attention, so I thought I would cross-post here. There is a section in the Wiki on this topic already that deals with "Private Installations."

This includes large private installations like government or military bases as well as smaller private communities. It is slowly evolving as different conversations occur. The thread that prefaced that wiki page is here: viewtopic.php?f=129&t=41985.

The current conversation seems to be around private communities that have different gates -- some for residents only and some for visitors and residents. How does one optimally route visitors versus residents? The solution cannot be complete and probably has to be chosen using local preference.