Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:20 pm
Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:14 pm
txemt wrote:voludu2 wrote:Then the style/best practice for this should also clearly state that any MPs which arise as a result should be closed "not identified", just to be clear that we aren't going to let an MP tell us what to do.
No, don't ever close an MP as "not identified." IGNs get involved then.
Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:21 am
jasonh300 wrote:I wouldn't say "years", but I was assured by an admin that the MPs would no longer be handled this way, which confirms (to me) that it was once handled that way. I can't find the emails now, but I believe the end result was that "not identified" now prevents that MP from appearing again.
Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:12 pm
qwaletee wrote:dbraughlr wrote:Can anyone speak to what policy exists for crossovers which are legal and useful?
Why wouldn't that be mapped like any other AGC? Well, maybe a a dirt road freeway
Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:40 pm
CBenson wrote:qwaletee wrote:I don't quite get this. Did you mean to say that only MUTI and RCUT are designed to supply a route directly to a different road on the other side? Because any type of U-turn potentially provides indirect access to roads that are connected to the other side of a dual carriageway, so long as it is a "U-turn" that Waze can make.
But that direct/indirect distinction is significant. If the crossover segment is supplying the direct route to the road on the other side, then you want the crossover segment to be of type that will not cause routes over the crossover to be pruned. If the crossover segment is only supplying indirect access to roads that are connected on the other side, then it can be street type and routes over pruned from consideration for longer routes. The only direct routes such a crossover is providing is to origins or destinations near the crossover, and such routes will not be pruned as the street type segment will be near an end of the route.
Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:40 am
PhantomSoul wrote:As far no posted sign for emergency authorized access only, doesn't the Interstate standard prohibit any kind of at-grade crossing of traffic, and maximum angles of exit and entrance turns?
For non Interstate roads, it might be due to re-evaluate whether such a road is actually a freeway. I've seen many cases where a road classified by FC as an Expressway definitely does not meet the minimum Waze characteristics for a Freeway, as defined in the Road Types wiki.
Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:11 pm
Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:35 pm
DwarfLord wrote:To follow up on this suggested change to the Dirt Road section of Road Types (USA), here is a proposal expanding slightly on kentsmith9's suggestion. Kentsmith9's suggestion in red, mine in blue:
Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:06 am
Because Waze allows users to opt out of through routing over this road type using the "avoid dirt roads" feature, it is generally used for roads that some fraction of local Waze users may prefer to avoid due to the type and/or quality of road surface and the availability of smoother, typically paved, alternatives.
Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:33 pm