Waze forum

I've been fixing A LOT of sloppy geometry lately and this is one of my biggest pet peeves. I know it doesn't make a huge difference in the client, but it does make roads in the client look much nicer and professionally done. Ok, rant over. Thanks for letting me vent.

failsafe wrote:

bigbear3764 wrote:

jmp316 wrote: Explain this further. I ran into some edits tonight by a lot of top Illinois editors that I would consider sloppy... I just want to make sure I'm not messing anything up by trying to fix things.

I'll find some examples tomorrow and post them...

Here's one:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=10&lo ... TTTFTTTTFT

Nice find. Yeah, everyone makes missteaks.

Perhaps, I misread this but the example provided is not a mistake. That is an example of extra geometry nodes being used on intersections with angled street in order to provide proper turn left/right instructions.

I think it's more to generate a "turn" instead of a "keep" announcement. I thought that angles less than 45 degrees generated "keep" instructions so the goal was to tweak the intersection angle close to 90 degrees in these situations to generate the "turn" instruction.

Also, I think I did recently read that angles closer to 0 degrees will not generate an instruction even if the segments had different names. It was in one of the interstate/freeway threads, IIRC, but perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly.

I doubt the extra geometry nodes added to bring the intersecting roads closer to 90 degrees is the cause for that routing. Most likely it's Waze thinking one route is faster than the other. Either there is missing/incorrect speed data for one or both routes or there was a backup on Kimball at the time the driver travelled through there.

Both routes appear to be valid; it's just that the offered route wasn't the route the driver wanted to take. Until Waze has better data about the offered route, it will keep choosing it as long as it looks better than the alternate(s).

A possible reason for these types of reports on adjusted intersections - at least in Chicago - could be a result of less-popular routes (with no or out-of-date traffic info) being offered where angled roads such as Milwaukee cut through a mostly NSEW grid system.

If you see a node on top of an intersection, and one of the roads runs at an angle, those are there to give a proper turn right/left. If the road is on an angle, waze will show the slight turn but won't announce it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you see a last edit date and user, it could be from a QW of a node to fix rev conns and u conns.

I know what your talking about though. I have selected segments and seen all the crazy nodes piled up on a strait run. Sometimes those are left from deleting extra intersection nodes. When you delete an unnecessary intersection node, it changes to a geometry node. I generally can tell when a road was split then unsplit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jmp316 wrote: Explain this further. I ran into some edits tonight by a lot of top Illinois editors that I would consider sloppy... I just want to make sure I'm not messing anything up by trying to fix things.

I'll find some examples tomorrow and post them...

Here's one:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=10&lo ... TTTFTTTTFT

Zoomed all the way in, it looks like a goofy angle on Milwaukee Ave. Now zoom out, it appears as it is running at a strait angle. If you select the segment on Milwaukee Ave, it will show the strait arrow going off the road. This allows Waze to give proper left/right instructions. I have come up to a road with an angled street and Waze didn't announce a turn because the turn was so slight, it ignored it and counted more as a geometry node turn. Put the little kick on it, and Waze gives the turn instruction.

failsafe wrote:Are you sure it still works that way? I thought that if there was an intersection with a road name change, Waze would tell you to turn regardless.

I had one do it to me about a month ago. I was on Lake-Cook rd going west and knew I had to turn right on Algonquin. Waze said next turn was in X miles at SR-31. I said to my self no, got to turn on Algonquin rd first. When I looked at it in the editor, the angle was to soft of an angle to give turn instruction. Gave it a kick and worked the next time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll have to take a look when I get to a PC.

EDIT: Ok, look to see what I did with the turn restrictions here:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-87.71 ... s=15079673

I left the turns from Milwaukee, but I restricted some left turns to increase the penalty for taking a route that Waze seems to think is faster. I have seen quite a few of these when there are 3 streets crossing to create a triangle. See if this stops this from happening, or we may need to restrict the right from Milwaukee to Woodard also. I know these turns are allowed, it's just that people generally don't take them because they know it's not the easiest way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just make sure that when you make it look pretty, you don't break functionality in the client. That's paramount.

One of the two things I'm willing to get "sloppy" on is a parking lot road, especially for a drive-through place. There, my goal is as few points as possible, and I'll keep them as far from the main road as I can, even if it's not pretty. Less chance of a false locate that way.

The other is when I'm mapping a new road by my own travel and the GPS points of others. There, I'll settle for close enough until the satellite image gets updated.

If you, or anyone else sees me as the last editor on a crappy-looking edit, permalink it and send it to me through the messaging system here. I won't get upset or shamed; I want to see it.

I know what you mean about the carelessness, jmp316. The downside of the whole "gaming" approach here. Edits aren't valued in terms of quality; only quantity. I agree with your approach; let's fix the stuff that's not right and make it better with every edit.