Kartografer wrote:I did a two-way crossover in a residential area, and it worked fine there, but it seemed a bit more complicated to set up. Have you noticed that?

I don't see it being any more complicated... but I haven't done this in a residential area before. Only Freeway and major divided roads.

No, if I'm doing a contraflow, I drop the cardinal letter and add as Alt names like you mentioned.

Oh the pages that exist in the Wiki. I'm always learning of new stuff on there. Did not know about that one, Subs. And you're right, that would be the best place to have more details for contraflow, especially since it actually mentions contraflow in the first paragraph.

OJ is also correct that wording needs to be adjusted for RTC's because of Google Maps. GM doesn't update their streets, and especially not if it is going to be a temporary change, and when we close the primary roads, GM will close theirs too and cause all sorts of routing issues.

The only concern about that page, it is assuming you have plenty of notice of a reconfiguration. That usually is not the case. Most often the reconfiguration is found the first time a driver reports and issue, or an editor drives and notices it. Especially true on contraflow.

But where do we draw the line at being Waze editors trying to make our map work the best is possibly can, and having to concede to other mapping agencies that pull our data without thought to their own system? Wouldn't a lack of care on their part in ensuring their maps are as accurate as possible help to drive traffic (pun intended) to our maps? Isn't that how business works? You don't intentionally hurt your competition, but you also don't go out of your way to help them either.

i will go ahead and give this topic a bump. i've seen several methods of contraflow/ crossovers in use including the two methods discussed in this topic(1.drawing new oneway segments and 2. converting oneway to two way).

i've seen discussions in a couple of states about how/ when to add contraflow/ crossovers so i think it is worth publishing guidance. it seems both ways discussed in this topic work. is there a preferred way that should be published? can both ways be published? or is this best left to regional guidance?

if anything is published i think there needs to be wording added to discourage the use of RTCs when creating contraflows. Google maps can grab these closures and shut down the segments in their map. Waze is not Google maps but they are partners and we should be mindful of how our edits can affect their map.

Just to throw in my two cents, my GMaps isn't show any closures in that area of I-40 and the whole route is green. The GMaps route Kartografer linked shows 42 min. 34 miles as of right now.

Now it shows closed, when I posted earlier I got a route through and it was not showing closed. Strange.

A few notes.

The content looks good, although under Wayfinders the "Tip: Remove any alternative names from the wayfinder to avoid best continuation" is a bit outdated. Guidance should be to use TIOs to ensure proper instructions are given.

General wiki formatting stuff, headings should be in Sentence case.

I have some concerns with the page name, as "Crossover" can also be used for authorized-vehicles-only median crossovers, which are not currently mapped. Maybe a "Crossover (disambiguation)" page would work, but really, your article is about mapping contraflow (not just the crossovers that enable it) and probably should be named as such.

Great idea getting this in the wiki, by the way. I have often considered but never implemented the implementation of hurricane-evacuation contraflow in Waze...

ldriveskier wrote:I removed the tip, but hesitate to add guidance for TIOs since I don't believe they are needed if wayfinders are used properly. I think just leaving it as an exercise to the user to use wayfinders properly should be sufficient.

At risk of speaking prematurely, the "current" wayfinder guidance in the wiki is outdated now that we have TIOs. To put it bluntly, there is no reason to use name & type tricks to make wayfinders work now that we have TIO. Stubs are still necessary to get proper naming in, but the wayfinder section needs a rewrite. I'll get right on that, I promise...

ldriveskier wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "Sentence case"?

Sentence case is the case in which a sentence is written.
Title Case Is the Case in Which Titles Are Written.

This applies to article titles too—i.e., the title of the article should be "Contraflow configuration" (or perhaps just "Contraflow" is enough, honestly).

This is adopted from Wikipedia guidelines and has only recently been followed in our own wiki. Generally, article titles should be in sentence case and singular.

Regardless, I don't mind helping with formatting (and the hurricane section), but today is not good for me

ldriveskier wrote:I do agree with this and struggled with wording. I changed the page to remove the use of the word crossover, though am still open to further naming and other wording changes. I also struggled with "configuration" versus "reconfiguration". I freely admit that I'm not the best at wording!

There is no need to eliminate the word "crossover" entirely, it's okay to call it a "contraflow crossover segment" or similar. To me, "contraflow segment" would be the segment on the other side of the road that's going the wrong way.

I need to gather information and report to staff on this first. The tile update schedule is so unpredictable and the decision to activate contraflow so fast-moving that it might not be feasible unless something is permanently built into the map lying in wait, but we don't have any mechanism for that. So, I don't know yet.