Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: [Page Update] RTC / Junctions and Cross Traffic

Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:22 am

Testing I've done suggests that this method is not always effective since a closure almost acts like temporarily deleting the segment. Thus, Waze will route to the nearest reachable road.
closure routing.jpg
(34.32 KiB) Downloaded 266 times

I know it's a pain, but setting opposing one-way closures originating at the closed intersection is the most effective way I've found to preserve routing.
closure routing2.jpg
(27.97 KiB) Downloaded 262 times

However, if one does not have the time/patience for this with larger events, I agree that closing both sides usually provides better routes than closing one.

[Page Update] RTC / Junctions and Cross Traffic

Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:51 am

Greetings -

After much prior discussion, I would like to propose changes linked below to the Junctions and Cross Traffic section of the Real Time Closures page. The goal of this page update is to provide guidance for editors relevant to lessons learned in handling real-time closures (RTC) and cross-traffic at junctions.

The specific challenge addressed by this revision is to overcome a limitation of real time closures (RTCs) which impacts routing to destinations on cross-streets of main roads which are closed and don’t physically allow cross traffic at their intersections, due to events or construction.

Current wiki guidance is to close only one segment of the two-way cross street (in both traffic directions) on one side of the main closed route. This effectively prevents routing across the closed road in either direction, except where the destination is on the single closed cross street segment and the user is on the opposite side of the main closed road. Waze will route the user to the nearer, incorrect, side of the closed route, leaving the Wazer unable to reach the destination.

This proposal is to close the cross street segment(s) on both sides of the closed intersections. Regardless of it is a 1-way or 2-way street, closing both sides of the intersection will prevent routes from crossing the closed road to reach a destination on the closed segment, or when starting a route on the closed segment

Also added is an examples subsection with two mock scenarios complete with guided images.

To see the proposed draft content for this section click here
To see a comparison between the proposed draft and the existing content click here

Thank you

Re: [Page Update] RTC / Junctions and Cross Traffic

Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:15 am

Pardon the delay in revision.

I've updated the proposal to reflect closing cross streets in the direction traveling away from the closed junction.

To see the complete proposed content for the section click here.
To see a comparison between the original proposal and the new content click here.

Re: [Page Update] RTC / Junctions and Cross Traffic

Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:56 am

Having no further discussion in more than a week, I've posted the update to the Real-Time Closure page Junctions and Cross Traffic section: here.

Re: [Page Update] RTC / Junctions and Cross Traffic

Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:24 pm

Yes, this would be an important change and would yield better results. In addition to wiki guidance, any standard instructions offered for MTEs would have to change. (Of course, this was what staff -- previously distributed when closures were submitted on sheets -- other than what's been issued for the Awazeing Race MTE contest, I'm not sure that's going to continue.)

So basically the instruction should be to close the cross-route in the outbound direction on a two-way segment.

Re: [Page Update] RTC / Junctions and Cross Traffic

Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:38 am

FzNk, I think I would explain it differently, but you are exactly right, and I can't believe I didn't see this sooner. Closing both directions on a segment makes Waze handle destinations on that segment as if they were on a non-drivable road type such as WT. Leaving one end open allows the routing server to act naturally, and approach only from the correct end. Thank you for this, even though it will require a bunch of rewriting on our part!
Post a reply