Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by DrivingWithBill
You are correct (surprise :D ), I need another cup of coffee, and looking at the other pages it does note the implications of Private as being "almost absolute", the fun of piecing it all together.
DrivingWithBill
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 215
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Send a message
-Drivingwithbill

this space intentionally left blank

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by fjsawicki
Your draft page says u-turn penalties are applied when segments are <16M. I thought that we had gotten more conservative and changed the wiki page on U-turns to say <14M
Preventing median U-turns link to this section
An extremely large U-turn penalty is set for a double-left or double-right turn when all three of the conditions below are met:

Three segments: The U-turn is a reversal of driving direction through three segments:
an incoming segment (A), a single median segment (B) and an outgoing segment (C).
Short median: The median segment (B) is equal to 45.93 ft (14 m) or less.
In/out parallelism: The in and out segments (A and C) are within ±5° of parallel to each other.
fjsawicki
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by fjsawicki
Am I misreading your draft? I clicked on the link in your original post and see this. https://www.screencast.com/t/CX7fJsXcTZdV
fjsawicki
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by fjsawicki
I even wonder if we should say "in order of increasing penalty". We can measure things like that today but have we received any assurance that those relationships won't be changed in the future?

I do think editors need to be warned that they shouldn't think the penalty on a PR is equal to the penalty on a PLR as we've seen problems when they make that assumption.
fjsawicki
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by fjsawicki
Definitely a bad idea to mix. We had a gated community in Ga that backed up to a shopping center. All the inbound traffic routed through the shopping center because there was less penalty for the PLR.
fjsawicki
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by fjsawicki
possibly:
Don't assume that routing penalties associated with different segment types are the same. For example, trying to balance PLR segment penalties with PR segment penalties in a gated community or parking lot will usually lead to routing problems
fjsawicki
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by fjsawicki
I'm happy with the simple "different amounts" comment. I had missed seeing that change.

Thanks
fjsawicki
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by HBiede
On bullet 8 of “Segment Properties,” I would propose a rewording to “in order of increasing penalty.” I find the increasing amounts part somewhat vague.
HBiede
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 114
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 90 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by HBiede
Kartografer wrote:I have wondered the same thing. Ultimately it's a bad idea to try to mix these transition penalties.
Might be worth having a short section to give a summary of mixed penalties?
HBiede
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 114
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 90 times
Send a message

Re: [Page update] Routing penalties

Post by HBiede
Kartografer wrote:
HBiede wrote:
Kartografer wrote:I have wondered the same thing. Ultimately it's a bad idea to try to mix these transition penalties.
Might be worth having a short section to give a summary of mixed penalties?
Maybe I'm just tired but kind of blanking on what to write for that... "Be careful about mixing road types that have transition penalties"? Could you propose some better text for a section on that? You are welcome to add it to the draft if you like

I was thinking something along the lines of a brief example for how mixing types can cause issues.

Possible:
“Be aware that mixing penalty levels can affect routing. For example, if the near side of a parking lot is accessible via a private road and the far side via a parking lot road, the navigation engine will prefer to route to the far side (the longer route) to avoid the increased exit penalty.”
HBiede
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 114
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 90 times
Send a message
Post Reply