[Page update] Turn instruction override

Moderators: MapSir, USA Champs

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby Deltamanx » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:29 am

Did Staff give a reason for phasing out mDL's and the like? Is it for display reasons? Is it to help simplify the map? Knowing why it's important would give the page update more validity beyond "because we told you to do it."
Deltamanx
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:42 am
Location: Modesto, CA
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby Deltamanx » Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:20 am

sketch wrote:
...mDL are really, really, really easy to unwittingly mess up when adjusting geometry on connecting roads. TIO are not.



Thanks, sketch. That is a valid reason for not using them. I would like to see wording reflecting that point:

TIO's are preferred over micro-doglegs because they are immune to changes in segment geometry.

or similar.
Thanks.
Deltamanx
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:42 am
Location: Modesto, CA
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby dfortney » Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:47 am

What is the sense of urgency to mandate that the old design "must" be removed?

Some of the old configurations are complex, have been in place successfully for years, and would not be trivial to port over to newer techniques and/or the newer techniques introduce new tradeoffs of their own. Especially when the needed edit to the junction is minor, it seems heavy-handed to say the new edit cannot be made without undertaking a simultaneous modernization of the entire junction.

Example: if making a change along a stretch of road (e.g., alt-city addition), would the editor be required to revamp every junction touched along the way?
dfortney
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:26 pm
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby DwarfLord » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:08 pm

nzahn1 wrote:...staff told us to 'clean up your [poop]', referring to the hacks such as mDL, stubs, or other mechanisms we had been using.

Legacy workarounds that still work fine and do no harm are not poop and were never poop. Whatever handsomely-paid employee used this kind of language in front of a room full of volunteers is out to lunch.

I completely agree that if a legacy construction is under the knife for other reasons, by all means editors should be encouraged to bring it up to current standards! And I support any guidance that says so.

But a mandatory requirement that editors spend their time seeking out, busting open, and redoing legacy constructions that are working just fine -- don't we have better things to do? Is that really what we volunteer our time for? Does any of us wake up in the morning saying "OH yeah, I'm gonna fix a pile of things that ain't broke today! And if I'm lucky and do everything right, it will have no effect on the driver experience whatsoever!"

(EDIT: I recognize the OP proposed mandatory replacement of legacy constructions only when editing them for other reasons. I still disagree that guidance should demand mandatory replacement if an existing construction works fine. But to clarify, my strong tone above resulted more from the report of Waze staff "telling us off" about our "poop" -- "poop" they left us no choice but to use to work around their oversights and bugs. :evil:)
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2500
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1088 times
Been thanked: 1475 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby FzNk » Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:00 pm

XKSpeed wrote:Could we then agree that the wording be updated to the following:

If an existing intersection produces the desired instruction using old designs such as micro-doglegs and virtual stub segments, do not replace them solely to update the intersection with TIO. However, when editing an intersection with an old design, the old design should be removed and replaced with TIO during the edit so the intersection is immune to changes in segment geometry in the future.

I think that goes against the general trend of this thread:
sketch wrote:There is simply no reason whatsoever not to replace those we come across when we come across them (per the proposal we had all come to pretty much agree on in this thread just a few posts ago).

That message tells editors to be unnecessarily conservative when editing intersections that use old hacks and generally muddies the page's guidance. Not to add yet another proposal, but would it be too extreme to just remove the whole mbox since there's no strong message that we need to convey (always/never/check with leadership)?
FzNk
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:05 am
Location: Salem, OR, USA
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby FzNk » Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:02 am

Sorry for the ambiguity. That comment was in reference to XKSpeed's proposed change. I should've directly quoted sketch's proposal to show the contrast so I'll do so now.

sketch wrote:The replacement of existing micro-doglegs and virtual stub segments with TIOs is not urgent, provided that they currently produce the desired instructions. However, if you happen to be editing an intersection using such old methods, it may be prudent to take the opportunity to replace them with TIOs as needed.
To me this says that it's not a priority but it might be a good idea to update to TIO if you see the opportunity. I'm not as concerned as some that editors may go on an mDL replacing spree if we don't tell them not to, but I'm fine with this language.

XKSpeed wrote:If an existing intersection produces the desired instruction using old designs such as micro-doglegs and virtual stub segments, do not replace them solely to update the intersection with TIO. However, when editing an intersection with an old design, the old design should be removed and replaced with TIO during the edit so the intersection is immune to changes in segment geometry in the future.
I don't like that this explicitly tells editors to NOT replace mDLs as a primary-cause edit. This is the type of guidance I would give a new editor about something like adjusting slightly misaligned segments and other edits that don't really improve the map. Removing an mDL, on the other hand, means that the next editor can't accidentally break it so why not do it when you find one?
FzNk
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:05 am
Location: Salem, OR, USA
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby itzwolf » Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:06 am

sketch wrote:Proposal:
The replacement of existing micro-doglegs and virtual stub segments with TIOs is not urgent, provided that they currently produce the desired instructions. However, if you happen to be editing an intersection using such old methods, it may be prudent to take the opportunity to replace them with TIOs as needed.


I think this wording is perfectly acceptable. In the SER if we are working the area especially the specific segments that contain the mDl, our guidance has been update to a TIO. There is no seek and destroy mission however at our meetup 2 years ago it was specifically stated by waze staff (Chen) that they did not like the mDl hacks (in fact IIRC at the NA meetup she stated it makes her cry) and the TIO was developed for us and should be utilized instead.
itzwolf
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 2:05 am
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby jm6087 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:45 pm

Deltamanx wrote:Did Staff give a reason for phasing out mDL's and the like? Is it for display reasons? Is it to help simplify the map? Knowing why it's important would give the page update more validity beyond "because we told you to do it."


Because they created the TIO (that we asked for) that gives more control than MDLs. No need to cause the car on the app map to do a sudden jerk to the right and then straighten out.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 655 times
Been thanked: 1631 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby jm6087 » Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:00 am

FzNk wrote:
sketch wrote:There is simply no reason whatsoever not to replace those we come across when we come across them (per the proposal we had all come to pretty much agree on in this thread just a few posts ago).

That message tells editors to be unnecessarily conservative when editing intersections that use old hacks and generally muddies the page's guidance. Not to add yet another proposal, but would it be too extreme to just remove the whole mbox since there's no strong message that we need to convey (always/never/check with leadership)?


How does that tell editors to be unnecessarily conservative when editing intersections that use old hacks? It matches the proposed wording, stating that there is no reason to replace them unless you are already editing the intersection that uses the old hack.

If an existing intersection produces the desired instruction using old designs such as micro-doglegs and virtual stub segments, do not replace them solely to update the intersection with TIO. However, when editing an intersection with an old design, the old design should be removed and replaced with TIO during the edit so the intersection is immune to changes in segment geometry in the future.


Personally, I don't see a need to add the "so the intersection is immune to changes in segment geometry in the future" part. That is only a part of the explanation behind why TIOs exists.
Ultimately they were created to replace micro-doglegs and should be used instead of them, that is what they are for. One should never create a new micro-dogleg, so why leave old ones.
The only thing the guidance is trying to ensure is that no one starts a seek-and-destroy mission or mapraid type deal to get rid of them all. They will get fixed over time.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 655 times
Been thanked: 1631 times

Re: [Page update] Turn instruction override

Postby jm6087 » Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:11 am

FzNk wrote:Sorry for the ambiguity. That comment was in reference to XKSpeed's proposed change. I should've directly quoted sketch's proposal to show the contrast so I'll do so now.

sketch wrote:The replacement of existing micro-doglegs and virtual stub segments with TIOs is not urgent, provided that they currently produce the desired instructions. However, if you happen to be editing an intersection using such old methods, it may be prudent to take the opportunity to replace them with TIOs as needed.
To me this says that it's not a priority but it might be a good idea to update to TIO if you see the opportunity. I'm not as concerned as some that editors may go on an mDL replacing spree if we don't tell them not to, but I'm fine with this language.

XKSpeed wrote:If an existing intersection produces the desired instruction using old designs such as micro-doglegs and virtual stub segments, do not replace them solely to update the intersection with TIO. However, when editing an intersection with an old design, the old design should be removed and replaced with TIO during the edit so the intersection is immune to changes in segment geometry in the future.
I don't like that this explicitly tells editors to NOT replace mDLs as a primary-cause edit. This is the type of guidance I would give a new editor about something like adjusting slightly misaligned segments and other edits that don't really improve the map. Removing an mDL, on the other hand, means that the next editor can't accidentally break it so why not do it when you find one?


Thanks for the clarification, I 110 percent agree with you.
jm6087
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 655 times
Been thanked: 1631 times

Next

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chronos74