xteejx wrote:Or if you're in a van and can go straight over them
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Kulg wrote:I think that just Speed Bumps should be entered.
The streets that have these speed bumps are not that busy because of the bumps so the statistical data isn't that good for them. For this same reason I see Waze recommending speed-bump ridden routes to me all the time which makes the routing frustrating and counter productive. As an example on my way home every day there is a road that sees little traffic because it has 16 speed bumps! Waze recommends it most days as their isn't much traffic on it. Due to the low traffic stats don't show it as a slow route but with all those speed bumps its way slower than alternate routes in heavy traffic. (I actually measured & compared this route in particular).
So in short I think Waze will be a better routing system working far more accurately if speed bumps are taken into account and routes known to be slower with them.
palmerit wrote:I think the point being made is:
Speed bumps serve one purpose. To keep traffic slow. As soon as Waze has enough statistical data about the road, it'll already determine that the road is slow and route you along faster roads. In a nutshell, Waze doesn't (and shouldn't) know WHY its slower, just that it is.
Think about it. If we start with speedbumps, where does it end? Its just more data to enter, verify, cross reference, and maintain for no real additional value.
Should we mark pot holes? Stop signs? School zones? Pedestrian crosswalks? Puma crossings? Etc. Etc. You get the point. The system just needs to learn the average speeds.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Users browsing this forum: No registered users