[NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Moderators: MapSir, USA Champs

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby Lonewolf147 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Hey everyone. I'm jumping in on this project. Some of you heard me talk at the GLR meetup about the work I was doing with the DOT in Wisconsin on some of the crossover construction projects. At that time I was unaware that this thread existed, until Lisa brought it to my attention. I had already started a brainstorm page of step by step for creating this. BUT, in my configuration I am turning the opposing freeway into two-way, instead of drawing a new parallel freeway.

So, to get this topic moving again, I want to pose the question, which is better? Two-way, or draw new parallel? Are there benefits to both that we would want to consider describing each process?

I've had excellent results using two-way. Seeing that you are all currently talking about parallel, I'm sure that is working just fine too.

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Wisconsin/Closures
This is the page I'm brainstorming on. I need to adjust some wording soon though. I mention a lot of RTC's and that was incorrect. I make use of many Restrictions in addition to a couple RTC's.


I also want to acknowledge the idea mentioned earlier about the Hurricane section and agree that perhaps changing it to a more encompassing name like Evacuation Routes. And the idea of getting RTC like overrides for immediate changing of segment directions is a great idea. Has that been posted anywhere for suggestion yet?
Lonewolf147
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby Kartografer » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:06 pm

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?
[ img ]
Galaxy S9 running Pie on Mint
SM Ohio, AM New Mexico, South Dakota
Wazeopedia projects
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
-John 8:32
Kartografer
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:32 pm
Location: Westerville, Ohio, USA
Has thanked: 538 times
Been thanked: 772 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby Lonewolf147 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:27 am

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.
Lonewolf147
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby Kartografer » Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:07 am

Yeah I shouldn't have said it's more complicated. The residential thing was complicated just because the crossovers were at existing intersections and I had to draw extra segments for correct instructions.
Two-way is a lot simpler to draw; just need to make sure to restrict exits and entrances in the opposite direction, or else bad things could happen :) And do you name it without the cardinal direction (like I-94)? I'm thinking it would be good to keep both directions as alt names (I-94 E, I-94 W) to keep BDP working

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk
[ img ]
Galaxy S9 running Pie on Mint
SM Ohio, AM New Mexico, South Dakota
Wazeopedia projects
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
-John 8:32
Kartografer
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:32 pm
Location: Westerville, Ohio, USA
Has thanked: 538 times
Been thanked: 772 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby Lonewolf147 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:37 pm

No, if I'm doing a contraflow, I drop the cardinal letter and add as Alt names like you mentioned.
Lonewolf147
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby ojlaw » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:42 pm

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.
WI State Manager
IL Large Area Manager
CA, MN, ND, WA Area Manager
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
ojlaw
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:07 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby subs5 » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:51 am

Would this be better as a part of the https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Sc ... figuration page?

Also the WF page now states "Since Waze editors have the ability to create turn instruction overrides, the preferred approach is to use correct road types and alternate names, stubs named to match signage and turn instruction overrides where necessary."

And instead of a new road segment, would it be ok to have the current one change to two way and the BC will not announce the name since only one way to go?
subs5
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:05 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Has thanked: 592 times
Been thanked: 907 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby Lonewolf147 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:44 am

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.
Lonewolf147
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby subs5 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:59 am

Google maps can be noted but since we can't control their adding the crossover segments. I think getting Waze to route properly (especially if some exits are skipped). If Google maps wants to grab our RTCs (somewhat delayed both on entering and removing) but not the segment edits for the crossovers then that is more of a problem for them to resolve. Don't think we should adversely affect Waze routing based on their partial (incomplete) use of our updates.
subs5
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:05 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Has thanked: 592 times
Been thanked: 907 times

Re: [NEW PAGE] Contraflow Configuration (was Crossovers)

Postby ehepner1977 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:07 pm

subs5 wrote:Google maps can be noted but since we can't control their adding the crossover segments. I think getting Waze to route properly (especially if some exits are skipped). If Google maps wants to grab our RTCs (somewhat delayed both on entering and removing) but not the segment edits for the crossovers then that is more of a problem for them to resolve. Don't think we should adversely affect Waze routing based on their partial (incomplete) use of our updates.



It's not fair to the various CCP entities we partner with for us to adversely affect routing on one of the most popular navigation apps
SM: Missouri
ARC: PLN
LC: USA
[ img ][ img ] [ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
ehepner1977
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Has thanked: 406 times
Been thanked: 453 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RichardPyne