Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Moderator: Unholy

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jasonh300 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:45 pm

skbun wrote:
kentsmith9 wrote:
skbun wrote:I see it go back and forth and back again in Washington and California at the very least, and if what you're saying is true, every instance of it going back and forth represents 'a different street' that the routing engine needs to check against.

I have been fixing it on all the major CA highways/freeways as I go through editing/updated the Exit numbers on each route. I have not attacked I-5 thinking it had so many people travel that road that it must have already been done. That is what I get for assuming. :oops:


Understandable, I think. In fact, we now know from this thread: that we've never come to agreement on which is right, and some believed we need the 'space in the name' format to work around a now-fixed bug. So I guess we come full circle.

Interstates, no space after the "I", then?


The official way is to remove the space. The standard was changed back in January or February. However, it doesn't mean you have to go and change every interstate segment in the U.S. It just means that if you build a new interstate, it should conform to the standard. And a good editor should be updating it while cleaning up existing interstates, unless you're hellbent on not losing your shields for a few months (indefinitely).
jasonh300
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 976 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jasonh300 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:10 pm

BlazeTool wrote:
skbun wrote:By the way...are we all in agreement that the correct name for interstates now is "I-XXX", with no space, and we should make a project of seek and destroy wherever found?


Has the problem with shields only being displayed if the space is included been fixed?


Shields have displayed on segments without the space for nearly a year. However, right now, if you make any change to the name, regardless of how you change it, it will most likely break the shielding.

One thing is for certain is that the naming should be consistent. If you run the Livemap Navigation script down that section of I-5, you'll see a "Continue on..." instruction at every segment where the name changes.
jasonh300
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 976 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jasonh300 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:06 am

jhfrontz wrote:So, should I take the silence here as being consensus on toning down the "Be sure to restrict the straight through" on the wiki page?

Perhaps to something like
In some cases, editors have found it necessary to restrict straight-through motion. If you are encountering inappropriate routing that seems inexplicable, please post details of it on the forums so that other editors can help identify what might be causing the problem -- and get support form waze developers if needed.


I don't want to make any gung-ho edits...


I wouldn't leave any of them with the option for a straight through if possible. Certainly don't remove that restriction if it's there now. There's really no need to go inserting them everywhere unless there's been a problem, but if you're reworking interchanges, you might as well put them in while you're at it.
jasonh300
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 976 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jasonh300 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:46 pm

jhfrontz wrote:Ugh, that's hard on the eyes (though I thought the same thing about bow-tie intersections when I first saw them, so maybe the crossed-exits trick will grow on me). Ignoring that, I'm still at a loss as to why there would be routing through that intersection (vs. the freeway). The average speeds seem to favor the freeway. Were there lots of complaints at this intersection or was it by chance a one-off wayward GPS that confused the routing server into thinking that the driver was actually going down the ramp?


There was a problem at one point at a few exits, so I did this to every Interstate interchange with a split crossroad in Louisiana, and along I-10 in Mississippi also. The ones that aren't split get a red arrow to prevent traffic from being routed straight.
jasonh300
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 976 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jasonh300 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:35 am

To answer BlazeTool's question, yes, it may generate a problem report if someone actually goes straight, but no more than frequently violated illegal turns.

When the road crossing the freeway is split, I do the crossed exits trick, which prevents off-and-on routing and eliminates the need to restrict any turns.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=7&lat ... TTTFTTTTFT
jasonh300
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 976 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jasonh300 » Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:30 pm

This is where the problem usually comes in....if there's an accident on an overpass, Waze *could* try to route traffic off a ramp and then back on, however, Waze *shouldn't* ever make this suggestion, as it may or may not be illegal. If it's a situation where the highway is closed and there's no other options, we have to rely on the common sense of the driver to follow the instructions of the police directing traffic, or all of the other cars making the bypass.

If we don't make these restrictions, something else will inevitably get screwed up causing this type of routing and we're going to have to fix it anyway.
jasonh300
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 976 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby Daknife » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:19 pm

Reading through this thread I see no such consensus jhfrontz, rather just the opposite, the consensus is heavily in favor of the straight through restrictions being mandatory even when explicitly legal. The only silence I see is silence about just allowing straight thru travel to occur. In fact you are the only one to really speak for toning down the language recommending the turn restriction. Jason did agree that maybe we don't need to add them where there aren't problems, but pretty much everybody else has been strongly in favor of restricting straight through travel. And I also favor the restrictions. I still run across UR's where the restriction isn't in place where people got the off and on routing. I think I've seen on Map problem due to someone driving through a turn restrictions, versus dozens and dozens of UR's about off-on's.

Straight thru restrictions are a good thing because the penalty in the system isn't sufficient for it to work correctly. Nobody should every be given an off on route.
Image
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby CBenson » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:58 pm

jhfrontz wrote:Is the "Continue on..." relatively new?
As bigbear notes the "continue on" state does not trigger an instruction in the client.

jhfrontz wrote:There are several intersections in Ohio where the main route peels off on what seems like an exit, leaving some smaller route continuing on the straight-away. I've always heard that we should vary the spelling/spacing on the peel-away segment to induce a proper TTS instruction to "stay right" -- but I thought if the straight-through didn't have any discernible angle that there would be no instruction.

There is no instruction where the next segment is the "best continuation" from the last segment if the angle of deflection is less than 45 degrees. If the name and street type remain the same for a segment that peels off on what seems like an exit and the segment that continues straight has a different name and street type, then I get no turn instruction for the road that peels off and I do get a turn instruction for the road that goes perfectly straight.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby CBenson » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:48 am

The name of the road changes from "I-5 S" to "I- 5 S" That is from without the space after the hypen to with the space after the hyphen. If the name remains the same waze shouldn't route this way.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby CBenson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:28 pm

MysticCobra wrote:You mixed me up with another poster. My issue was I495/DC beltway Exit 39 / RT 190 / Potomac MD headed south into NOVA. There was another user reporting this issue in Severn MD.

Oops, sorry. That was Mohawk55a that was having the issue on MD-32. Sorry to misattribute that to you.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users