PhantomSoul wrote: Anyway, I was always under the impression that TIO was provided as a feature to eliminate all the hacks would use before that to control the turn instruction, including micro-doglegs, stubs of a certain unnatural road type, arbitrary alt names to created forced BC's, etc.

I was also under the assumption that TIOs were to help us update and/or rely on segment geometry to reflect the reality of junction angles. The TIOs would then supplement the turn arrows to override the existing instruction to support what instruction is needed (eg, Turn override vs. keep default). While it's not a hunt to remove all TIOs, I do understand there will be a time that old methods (eg, doglegs, mDL) will be replaced as new features may be rolled out that rely on this WME functionality.

Now, for the proposed wiki change by Voludu2, I would recommend changing the language to reflect equal to or less than 45 degrees as we've observed Waze performing some rounding on u turn prevention. I would rather be sure that angles 46 degrees or higher will generate a turn right rather than potentially leaving a keep right for an angle at 45.1 degrees.

Sorry I'm coming to the party late. I was hoping for consideration of wording to be added to the wiki to discuss TIO's in the context of segment directionality. For exit ramps and travel from one-way segments, a TIO is perfect. However, for any instance where there are 2-way segments involved, editors have to be reminded to consider the need for TIO coming at the junction node from ALL directions. In such cases, I would maintain that microdoglegs (mDL) are preferred. While harder to see and not easily tracked with a flag, mDLs obviate the need to set TIO's in each direction, which is easy to forget in a rush or if one is inexperienced. It isn't a big deal, but one that can lead to better understanding of how turn instructions are given in general for newer editors who often think only in one direction of travel.

whoaitspete wrote:
- Country borders is fine, but needs some detail. I am thinking it should be at the last possible u-turn or intersection before a border crossing, not border itself. We would likely need to implement a stub/wayfinder as well for naming purposes.

I agree with this idea in principle but if the TIO is placed as described, the s-out might still have the road and country name of the initial country - it could be confusing as it doesn't create a call out that the border is arriving.

I'm not sure how to generalize this, but when you are just minding your business on a local major arterial and are suddenly on a 24-mile-long bridge, there should really be a "continue" instruction. The bridge is only tolled southbound, so the "last segment before toll" doesn't suffice here. I'm not sure if all large/long bridges should be alerted to this way, maybe this is an extreme example, maybe it only needs to be to very-long bridges from non-freeways, or maybe even that would be too much for, say, the Florida Keys, I don't know. I can handle this one as its own case, but I do think it's worth considering a warning for such things.

Another one previously discussed, I think a "Continue" is warranted at any transition from freeway to non-freeway or from non-freeway to freeway on an otherwise continuous path, like this one but even more so where there is a significant name change. The principle of "drivers should be warned when entering a freeway" carries over from the "non-ramp to ramp" transition, and the notice when leaving the freeway is also, I think, warranted for its informational purpose. It is an "exit without exiting".

johnsninja58 wrote:Is it possible to start working on the scenarios for when to use "Continue" as this way we can be ahead of this scenario when it goes live.

Nagamasa wrote: - country borders
- change of designation in freeways
- BC to and from ramps
- last node before a tolled segment

The wiki currently indicates the "Continue" for an on ramp, and I completely agree.
In an earlier post from Nagamasa,
-I agree with country borders
-Changes of designation in freeways (wording to more express the ending of one and the start of another)
-Ramps should be worded in a way that they can be evaluated for clarity if a "Continue" prompt would help
-I do not support the tolled segment one as general guidance, there is definitely some examples where it would be helpful but with the toll indicator for the route. The limitations that exist in the waze app regarding tolls and routing, carpool lanes, and other variations would further complicate this discussion.

Any other ideas for "Continue"

1-
I am not sure whether I agree with the border itself or the later (non-quoted-here) post that it should be set at the point of no return. I agree with the logic of the latter but the simplicity of the former. Maybe we can do both—one saying "continue to CANADA /!\ /!\" and the other simply pointing out the actual border and the highway name change.

2-
In some situations, I can see two different ways to effect this. In this example, the first way would be to use a "continue" at the point where the Exit 1 ramp leaves to the right, as this is the first place where an "I-10 E / New Orleans" is found, because it is the "point of no return". The second way would be to use a "continue" at the point where I-55 S actually meets I-10 E.

The former would probably work as a direct replacement for WFs we already have in place, and as long as we keep the "to" in the stub name, I suppose it's not really misleading. In this case, "continue to I-10 E / New Orleans" instead of the somewhat-unnecessary "stay to the left to I-10 E / New Orleans". But really, an instruction isn't strictly necessary there, because the configuration of the road makes it quite clear that staying in the 2 travel lanes and continuing towards I-10 E is the normal, default way to go.

The latter, on the other hand, would allow for the elimination of some WF stubs and some rather unnecessary wayfinders—specifically, those which are put in place only to point out that you are leaving one highway destination and entering another, even though the "continuation" direction is abundantly clear and the "keep left" or "keep right" instruction therefore not at all necessary. To be honest, I really like the idea of being told when I finally leave one freeway and enter another, at that moment. This would allow us to shift the notification to the actual point of change. That said, by losing the stubs, we'd lose the ability to add control cities to these instructions. But I'm not sure that's a big loss, considering that it's mostly an informational prompt at this point.

Here is another example with an unnecessary wayfinder for the sole purpose of pointing out a name change (used to be necessary, but they recently added a third thru-lane).

3-
"BC to and from ramps" needs to be better stated. First, a "continue" at the end of a ramp is not a good idea. How many thousands of interchanges are configured currently not to give an instruction at the end of the ramp? And this is okay. You've already taken the ramp, you know you're going to end up on that other road, and you probably know what it's called from the exit name.

The third point should be to override best continuation when traveling from any non-ramp to any ramp segment. The need for this between all non-freeway types and ramp is well documented.

Although, with freeways, the only reason I can conceive of at the moment that a freeway would end in a ramp is that the freeway is incomplete (whether permanently or otherwise), and I'm not sure that is the appropriate place for an instruction in all cases. Here is a stub-end of a permanently-unfinished freeway that could conceivably be drawn with a ramp between the point where the 'exit ramp' leaves the stub end, but really, the instruction would be unnecessary, and it's more important to know whether you are, in the end, staying to the right or to the left on Dickory. I did at one time have it configured with an actual freeway stub to give an "exit" prompt there, but with the way the lanes are painted it really was extraneous. (Now that we have TIO, I might redraw it like that but with "no instructions" for the ramps, just for the "unfinished freeway" visual )

By the way—this does not apply to ramp used for MUTI where the median crossing used for the MUTI is also the median crossing of a cross-street...

4-
Just mentioning for completeness, I don't really have an opinion on this one as I use toll roads very rarely. However, it does make sense to me when going from a strictly non-toll route to a toll route or toll bridge.

Please forgive the double post, but this is an entirely different facet of the topic and it's been a few hours, so I think it's okay.

I think we should point out that "macro" doglegs are and should still remain perfectly acceptable and indeed the preferred method of editing such intersections. These are perhaps more common in rural areas. Here is an example: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 967&zoom=8

Where a visible dogleg is easily identified and added without having to zoom in much or at all, the appropriate way to edit is to duplicate the dogleg from reality into the map.

This is easily distinguishable, I think, from oblique intersections, where the "stop line" is not parallel to the intersecting road.

This isn't a true example, as in most cases like this you'd have stubs controlling the prompt name anyway, and apparently the guidance on this never made it to the wiki, but in situations where one freeway begets another, either in one direction only or in a configuration where it is clearly designed to flow in only one of two directions, or where two freeways merge into and out of a concurrency,it is visually more pleasing and often more accurate to draw that particular 'ramp' as a freeway as well.

In a future world where we can control the text/"street name", we need to be cognizant of that and use "Exit" when defining the instruction.

Further, there are certainly similar situations on the ground with mH and MH; that said, in the case of an end of concurrency on regular highways, usually a "keep" instruction is better because you're 'staying' on that road.

That is a good example of sort of the opposite case, where neither s-in nor s-out should be a freeway type (i.e., both should be ramp) visually and functionally but where an exit instruction is preferred.

I think Keep is fine for these. Never had a problem with 'stay to the right' on C/D interchanges. I don't think a blanket change is necessary. I have no problem with SMs, etc., using TIO for particularly complex C/D interchanges, perhaps, where the situation might especially call for it.

As DwarfLord said, this is often encountered in California. It's not unique to California, however.

The wiki page on this subject is somewhat unclearly written, simply because of a misplaced bullet point. For clarity, this subparagraph should, IMO, be under the first bullet point, not the second, and the words 'exit identifier' replaced with 'exit number', as that was the intent:

If the exit identifier does not appear on any signs, then do not include it, even if it is documented elsewhere. Including unsigned information in Waze instructions can confuse drivers. Some states may have exceptions to this guideline; check your state page for details. (Rule change: May 2016.)

In other words, the exit number should be included, and the ramp name should follow the format "Exit 6B: Julian St" as long as all that information can be found cumulatively on the signs at the exit. In other words, you can take an exit number from the EXIT ↗︎ sign and the exit name from the BGS and combine them.

Common in California, but we had a few of these in New Orleans as well for a few years. For some reason, for as long as I could remember, exits on US-90 BUS were numbered (and signed with numbers) on the west bank of the river, but not on the east bank. That all changed a few years ago. First, the EXIT ↗︎ signs were replaced with new ones that included numbers; it took them a few years to replace all the BGSes with new ones that included numbers as well. During the interim period, it is certainly helpful to add the exit numbers to the Waze ramp name, so the driver can confirm the exit number with the EXIT ↗︎ sign.

No?

Every single turn/exit/keep instruction in the world uses the name of the segment you're turning/exiting/keeping onto. TIO are no different. I really don't even know what to say to an editor who doesn't get that after being told once. Why on earth would it tell you to "Turn right on [the street you're already on]"??

And I don't know what you mean by "outgoing segment" but it doesn't matter. It is the relationship between the two segments that determines the turn instruction. There is no such thing as the "angle" of a single segment.