Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:56 am

Thortok2000 wrote:Not once has it ever offered me any other solution to avoid that N Church St traffic; it's always to take Academy instead. Never anything else. Ever. Ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever.

So what happens if you ask for alternate routes? When I bring up your live map route I'm currently given this:
(163.26 KiB) Downloaded 745 times

Waze seems to consider going down Main St, but concludes that its over 10 minutes slower. I don't know why waze thinks its that much slower. But yes, it seems that waze isn't going to find Main as the faster route unless waze detects a major backup on both Church and Academy that results in those routes taking 10 minutes longer than usual to go the 2 miles.

Thortok2000 wrote:So that's my experience. The only main reason I can think of why my experience is so much different is because there isn't a strong amount of Wazers in this area. Which makes me wonder why a standard that doesn't fit for areas of low usage would be a good standard to apply nation-wide. =/

So I will just say for the record that my experience is very different. On my morning commute, which is longer than yours, I have documented waze's initial calculation as giving me over 2 dozen different routes and there are likely a couple dozen more routes that I haven't documented. Plus waze will also change my route during my drive. Granted there are many minor variations for a few major routes. But the point is waze does route over these minor variations for me.
The difference may be the higher usage of waze here. The difference may also be the server giving me different routes as I volunteer for various beta tests. The difference may also be that traffic frequently comes to a standstill around here, so maybe the traffic here is severe enough to overcome whatever stickiness you experience.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:38 am

bart99gt wrote:However, when it comes to urban classification, what the DOT classifies the road as, and what Waze expects the road to be, in my observation, diverge somewhat. I make the assumption that Waze shows such a strong preference for MH because it is expecting a road that is multi-lane, with a higher (probably 50+ mph) limit, and few controlled intersections.

I don't think this is the case. Waze works in say rural Africa where there are no limited access roads or multi-lane roads with 50+ mph limits and few controlled intersections. Yet what waze seemed to expect in order to work is that the major roads connecting cities that are used for long distance travel needed to be major highways or freeways. Waze will assign default speeds based on road type. Once the road is traveled on this becomes moot. The problems with road type are due to the default speed where no data is gathered (the windy mountain road with no cell coverage that you mention), pruning decisions and traffic highlighting.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:23 pm

I agree as well. This guidance is more objective and will bring greater consistency to the map.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:22 pm

What's wrong with davielde's sheet?

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:43 pm

Here is the Maryland page: https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Maryland#Fun ... sification

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm

I was looking for US-89 Scenic signs and haven't found them yet. What I composed before your post was the following: I think the key is Russblau's point that what matters is how the highway is signed. It doesn't matter whether the road has some "scenic" or "national" designation if it isn't signed with a U.S. Route shield with that designation. Thus, US-89A should be treated like any US route because its signed that way. US-40 Scenic should be treated as scenic route because it is signed that way.

As an aside in looking for US-89A signs in streetview, I got confused with state 89A and saw this sign, which makes it look like someone keeps routes around for their historical significance alone.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:51 pm

I agree that emergency crossovers don't need to be mapped. But I would note that I have received multiple URs in Maryland (possibly by the same user, but at fairly distant locations) noting the absence of crossovers. I noted that we don't typically map emergency crossovers because they are not driveable by the common driver. The users still wanted to see them on the map because 1) they use them as landmarks, 2) they could be useful information in an emergency, and 3) (I think the users' primary reason) they are where the police speed traps are typically located in the area. I have never seen a UR complaining about emergency crossovers that are are mapped as unconnected private roads.

EDIT: Although the only one I can find still on the map that I did following this guidance in response to the URs is here and it doesn't really show on the client map at all.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:40 pm

Waze is collecting examples of dangerous left turns - meaning turns that are legal to make but could be unsafe. So if you specific examples, please provide them to a Champ so Waze can investigate to formulate a solution.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:02 pm

jasonh300 wrote:I don't advocate putting any type of crossover on Interstate highways since it's never legal for any passenger vehicle to route on them, and they are bound to cause problems.
I would have agreed with you up until this post was made:
dbraughlr wrote:Can anyone speak to what policy exists for crossovers which are legal and useful?

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:58 pm

I agree that the crossover looks like a accident waiting to happen. But I have no information on whether it is legal or useful. So if we can agree that there aren't useful crossovers on interstates then I'm am on board with the general elimination of crossovers on interstates.
Post a reply