codgerd, the Canadian champ is mostly correct. However, it doesn't have to be exclusively that. whatever will give the clearest instruction to the driver - that's our goal. Usually that means matching the sign exactly. But in situations where matching the sign may actually create difficulties in giving good instructions we deviate. This is is merely the (? only?) documented situation where we have guidance for it.

There are several problems when we have a "dual exit" that splits.

1) If it causes long text, will it fit on screen?
2) If it causes long text, will it be spoken at the correct moment and finished in time for the next instruction?
3) Will the length of the prompt distract the driver too much?
4) Will the length of the prompt cause the driver to have difficulty checking the sign for a match - usually not a problem unless there are multiple signs on the same overhead or closely spaced (so shortening may actually make it easier to spot the correct sign)
5) Will we give too many/too few instructions, or will we be too repetitious?

On that last point: Since a blank segment carries the later instructions back to the highway, you will have identical instructions at two decision points. If they are very closely spaced, some drivers get annoyed or confused if you repeat the same instruction multiple times.

So you have to use your judgement. Do a mental simulation, playing out the instructions and their timing in your head, and see which will provide the best experience for most drivers overall.

Sometimes the principles come into conflict, and you may have trouble deciding. Other viewpoints can then be valuable, so ask away.

CBenson wrote:I'm all for clarity. The way I read the instructions is that you can't really match a sign like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9448776 ... 312!8i6656

So you leave that ramp blank to pick up the instructions after the ramp splits to distinct destinations.

If I had to: Exit 7B-7A: I-95 / I-495 / Beltway / Baltimore / Richmond

Nagamasa wrote:Oops

Don't feel bad. It allowed me read back to some unresolved posts. That , includes one where i mentioned adding unsigned local usage names. I never followed up.

There was a discussion, probably over a year ago, about this. We did have consensus that it could be added to the end of the ramp name. It would be difficult to find the original discussion. If anyone remembers where it is, or just wants to chime in with an opinion, floor is open (as always!).

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.

Nagamasa, we don't do lane guidance anyway. And yes, the DOT can sometimes set things up in such a way that it can be confusing, even without trying to process their multiple information points synchronously with Waze's.

In CBenson's case, it appears they were simply trying to avoid having to repeat all the road names for each direction. It would have made an already-unwieldy sign into a monster.

PesachZ wrote:

codgerd wrote: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.

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.

For example approaching the first junction the client will say "Exit right then keep left to Exit 18:…", then at the second junction " keep left to Exit 18:…". This works very well in practice and doesn't need to be hacked around.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk

That was sloppy of me. Here's what can actually happen. When the unnamed ramp segment is short, then it will typically do this: 1) At warning distance (often half a mile), announces "exit right to <next-named-segment>"; 2) just before the exit, announces "exit right then keep <left/right>"; 3) on the unnamed segment, announced "keep <left/right> to <next-named-segment>"

In step 2, it is suppressing the actual name. In some situations, this instruction can be confusing or distracting, especially if it is "exit right then keep left." You've just been given two directionals in a row with no context. In this situation, it may be beneficial to name the unnamed segment, but perhaps using partial naming, such as "Exit 1234" without all the details, or "Exit 1234: I-999" without control cities.

There may be some similar considerations on longer ramps, but I don't recall details.

I have tested TTS for the 17-to-4 transition in the example below, and that is what it does. In this particular case, I would not fix it, because there is no exit numbering on this highway. The only consistency is in the name "route 4," and my take is that wouldn't have a huge benefit. I have another example on I think I-80 somewhere, with an exit number that had split into A and B after the initial exit. I named the common ramp "Exit 999A / Exit 999B". The actual signage there was inconsistent, with I think the first BGS showing Exit 999A-B with a destination highway and control cities for each direction, but the second showing completely separate signs for 999A and 999B.

https://www.waze.com/livemap?lon=-74.06 ... 15&zoom=14

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 7,77340783

Dwarflord,

I think codgerd took that language from my post. 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."

In the case of this edit, more information about what makes a clear instruction bogs down the article, and provides general instructions that really apply everywhere, not just here.

DwarfLord wrote:This is a great addition and clarification to the wiki! Thanks for your work on this.

codgerd wrote:...the goal is to provide the clearest navigation instruction to the driver.

Though it seems straightforward enough, this phrase can mean different things to different people.

For some editors, it it can mean identifying the road you're entering, even if the signage disagrees or is unclear. For example, if one is turning left on Main St, but the only available sign says one is turning left on SR-152, this perspective wants the guidance to say "turn left on Main St".

For other editors, it can mean matching the sign as verbatim as possible and giving other considerations lower priority. For example, if one is exiting to SR-85 that will lead drivers to SR-82, but the big green sign simply says "SR-85 SR-82", this perspective wants the guidance to say "exit to SR-85 SR-82".

To help editors through such controversy, I'd like to suggest rewording to:

"...the goal is to help drivers navigate their immediate situation. This means providing simple, practical guidance on the approach and transit of an intersection or interchange. Using literal sign content must be balanced against the risks of (a) confusion when the signs themselves are unclear or poorly visible from a distance, and (b) accidentally inducing unnecessary or counterproductive lane changes during the driver's approach."

[EDIT: wordsmithed suggested paragraph.]

And, third post in a row... some tweaks.

We have deprecated the use of the term divided in many contexts because of ambiguity. I recommend something along the lines of "when the initial exit ramp forks after ..."

With some limits, Waze can look ahead across several unnamed ramps in a path to find the final name. You may also want to think about whether we need to describe more complex situations (the forks fork again, or a three way fork that Waze does not handle well, though the naming article is the wrong place for a longer discussion of the latter).

We may want to simply get what we have (with minor tweaks) published, and work on more significant changes as an additional revision.

Steve, good post.

The problem is this: We're principle-driven here, and can't cover many, many scenarios. The more detail we give, with specific examples covered, the greater the likelihood that we push someone into a box when a good analysis would say otherwise. OTOH, we can't leave it entirely open. We'll never get it perfect. My take is to say that explicitly, give the principles, and we can then add detail to cover special cases to the point just shy of where it bogs down.

Paragraph "In the general case..." - I think this one should be pared down.

Despite all the forgoing - the syntax is ambiguous until you read the last couple of phrases.

Suggested wording (general case):

Usually, the exit ramp name should match the text on the exit sign very closely, but using the formatting instructions above. There are exceptions where the ramp should either not be named at all, or should be named differently than the signs. Some examples appear below.

The remainder of the paragraph really should be together with the bullets below it, and a cross-reference to the unnamed segment article instead of trying to summarize it all into a single sentence.

Despite all the forgoing - suggested text:

Despite all the examples, there are other exceptions, and there are cases where the foregoing exceptions may not apply. A good editor will always analyze the situation, adjust for its context and expected user experience, and use good judgement, editing experience, and collaboration to arrive at the best name. Remember, the overriding principle is to help drivers navigate the route Waze provides. This means providing simple, practical guidance on the approach and transit of an intersection or interchange. Any exit name that fails to do so, despite following rules and exceptions perfectly, is itself a failure.