qwaletee's list of 'questions' to be asked formed the basis for the text. An affirmative answer to each question didn't necessarily imply an unnamed ramp was appropriate; at least, that's my interpretation of what qwaletee wrote.

Updated:

In the general case, the exit ramp name should match the text on the exit signage as closely as possible. However, in the case of exit ramps that serve multiple further exits, leaving the first ramp unnamed, and inheriting the instruction from the next routed segment name, may be appropriate in the following circumstances:
- when the length of text on the first ramp signage is too long for the client device to display
- when TTS is too long to provide the next instruction in time
- when the length of TTS has the potential to be too distracting to the driver
- when the length of instruction might cause confusion to the driver in finding a match when multiple signs are present
- in complex multi-lane exits where a measure of lane guidance may be provided

Leaving the first ramp unnamed may also be inappropriate:
- when the first ramp segment is short enough that it causes repetitious identical instructions to be issued in quick succession, something that may be distracting or annoying to the driver

Despite all the foregoing, analysis, context sensitivity, and the good judgement of editors should take precedence: the goal is to provide the clearest navigation instruction to the driver.

I'd welcome comments as to whether such an addition to the wiki would be helpful, and whether other considerations for or against unnamed ramps are in common usage and should be included. I've included all the examples that have been mentioned in this thread to date. If any of these do not represent the consensus opinion (the lane guidance point, for example, seems contentious) please let me know.

I will copy the page into user space and provide the link here, as well.

qwaletee wrote:You raise some good points. However, if we define it to well, then we may box ourselves into a rigid system that doesn't accommodate analysis and a context sensitivity. Your suggestion is fairly reasonable. The way we typically do these changes now is to create a copy of the page in user space, save it, apply the changes, save them, then post a link to the proposal and to a delta (dif) from the current version.

If that sounds complicated, no worries. It isn't really that hard, especially if you are only using basic wiki markup. We have lots of people who would be happy to help you with that.

Hopefully I've done this correctly:

Proposed page
delta

I'd be grateful for any comments and suggestions, including whether these edits are relevant, helpful, and represent the consensus opinion of the US champs.

PesachZ wrote: If two junctions in quick succession would generate an identical prompt (either named the same, or the first is no-name), the client has built in behaviour so it doesn't sound buggy. The client will adjust and say the name once.

Thanks - I've removed that section.

DwarfLord wrote:

qwaletee wrote:I purposely left it ambiguous, exactly because it means different things to different people. An editor must try to think like a nervous driver and a confident one, a local and an unfamiliar. The instructions in general (not just this topic) should have a design goal of balancing those needs. "Routing for all."

Very well. I didn't understand we were shooting for ambiguity here. I have been involved in some difficult disagreements that resulted from the ambiguity on this topic, and was hoping to mitigate that situation going forward. Oh well.

If this isn't the place in the wiki for this, is there another? Or perhaps I'm off in left field on this.

I waded into this as an attempt to help resolve some of these ambiguities, so I likewise was hoping we could achieve clear guidance. It is understandable that there will always be some unforeseen scenarios that call for extraordinary decisions, but it seems to me achievable to give a) a guiding principle (e.g. routing for all, as qwaletee puts it), a clear rule (i.e. name all ramps with the exact signage), and then enumerate a number of scenarios where it is permissible/advisable to deviate from the clear rule. I think that this would cover 99+% of scenarios, and the remaining ones would presumably be taken care of by champs who likely don't need the help of the guidance in the first place.

KB_Steveo wrote:You definitely need to remove

In the general case, the exit ramp name should match the text on the exit signage as closely as possible.

as this could lead to confusion with the first, exising bullet.

I've reviewed and altered that statement to jive with the first bullet, thanks. I think the statement is important, as it enunciates clearly the general rule to follow.

New revision: https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:Codgerd ... n-ramps.29

KB_Steveo wrote: As for the topic of naming the first ramp, or not. I've been telling the editors in my state to use the guidance

If there are multi lane A-B exits that fork, where one left lane splits left, and one right lane splits right, you should definitely leave the first segment blank. This gives the driver adequate time to match the prompts with the correct lane to be in, as opposed to being forced to rapidly change lanes, in heavy traffic, because they had to wait for the "and then" prompt to show up.

The new proposed guidance covers these scenarios adequately, I think. If you told your state's editors to follow the new proposed guidance instead of the above, would it change anything? I think the scenarios you've outlined would be served by the proposed guidance, no?

I agree with qwaletee that the wiki can't cover every possible scenario explicitly. The best we can do is give a general guiding principle, state a clear rule, and list exceptions to the rule, if any.

Regarding my proposed edits to the ramp naming page, what is the next step towards getting agreement on them and pushing the edits to the wiki page? I sort of ran out of steam here, but I think that the clarifications I proposed are helpful.

Hopefully I've done this right:
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/index.php?ti ... did=123053

The delta is with the page as I copied it initially. It still appears to reflect the content on the actual page. The object of the proposed edit was to clarify situations in which it's okay to leave a ramp unnamed to inherit downstream name.

PesachZ wrote:Do you kind if I make a quick edit on your page to some of the wording, it can be easily undone. I don't like the mention to match the "text of" the sign. Since we match text and shields. I propose to remove the word text and replace with contents.

Please go right ahead!

How do I create a delta comparing the draft on my user page and the live page? (sorry for being a n00b at this!) Since I clearly should have started with the live page and not the never-ratified revision, should I start over using the live page, and re-create my edits? Would that be easier? Thanks!

Thanks for the edits; they help with readability. My only comment is that putting the word "may" in italics (twice) rather weakens the statements. It's already written in the conditional, is it necessary to emphasize it further? The impetus for the edit was to flesh out those circumstances in which it can be advisable to use an unnamed segment; the may appears to give more equivocation room rather than less.