Kuhlkatz wrote:txemt wrote:You'd be surprised how quickly you could clean that up with QW.
The alternative to that sea of red is a sea of orange.....
Just imagining each of those as a UR or a MP should be enough encouragement to spend 5 minutes tops doing a Q/W on each node and giving the area a quick once over to see if road markings includes one way arrows somewhere....
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
Kuhlkatz wrote:Someone familiar with the area should be able to correct that fairly quickly.
Kuhlkatz wrote:In most populated neighborhoods, one-ways and fancy turn restrictions will not exist apart from the main arteries through them.
Kuhlkatz wrote:If it's near a CBD or an industrial area, it may be a different story.
Kuhlkatz wrote:I understand that the auto-directionality and soft turn restriction overrides should not be happening any more in the back end, even though there has been isolated recent reports where this still seemed the case.
Kuhlkatz wrote:It still does not make sense why soft turns are still allowed by default when a junction is created, yet the default for the 'hard' restrictions still deny everything.
Sure, but now we are back to the priority issue. Should that happen, the area will get editor attention and these restrictions will be cleaned up.Kuhlkatz wrote:A few trips through there would maybe not affect routing due to the soft settings, but with the new automated MP system, each junction traveled through a few times will potentially create an auto-MP as the hard restrictions do not match.
Kuhlkatz wrote:So based on this, if a new area is layed out and the names added as a seperate pass, or as I prefer, lay out and name the full-length streets first and then connect them afterwards, can we assume they were edited at least once more after the initial creation, so technically speaking their directionality *would* remain fixed, even if it is incorrect.
Kuhlkatz wrote:I'm not disputing anything or trying to pick fights here, I'm just curious about why some of you first-generation editors (read "old hands at this") prefer to leave sections like these, when a QW clean-up is fairly quick, especially if someone knows the area.
Right, when adding a new communities, which we don't get to do too often here, that's good practice.Kuhlkatz wrote:I personally prefer to QW junctions while I create a section, so I know it's 'fixed'. Afterwards, red arrows when viewed with 'Connectivity Arrows' (Shift-Z) draws attention when zoomed out, and can be quickly verified as a valid turn restriction or not. To spot an invalid turn restriction here is going to be impossible if not cleaned up.
Kuhlkatz wrote:So, as far as turn restrictions go, if they are never explicitly set using Q/W on the junction or clicking any arrows with the segment highlighted, only the allowed 'soft' ones are in place and no hard restrictions should exist for the segment / junction pair ?
In the absence of anything else to correct on the map, it would be better to spend the few minutes and eliminate the soft turn restrictions. But if there are other URs and MPs around, I'm going to be addressing those areas rather than searching out soft turn restrictions in residential areas. The point is not that the soft turn restrictions should be left in place. The point is when converting them to hard restriction you should be reasonably sure that the turn restrictions are correct. You should not blindly QW an area that is full of soft turn restrictions. I think we are in agreement here as long as we recognize a clear difference between "blindly QWing" and "giving the area a quick once over."Kuhlkatz wrote:What I am trying to get at is this : Do we know for sure that sections left like this would not generate auto-MPs due to intact 'soft' restrictions allowing everything, and having no other explicit restrictions set, or would it be better to spend a few minutes and take the precautionary approach ?
AndyPoms wrote:When a road is created, the turns are "soft" denied, meaning Waze will route through them even if they are denied. This is because you can't prove a negative.
Kuhlkatz wrote:In my opinion it should be explicitly set for each junction, and not depend on user drives ever.
txemt wrote:You'd be surprised how quickly you could clean that up with QW.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users