Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Moderator: Unholy

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby MisterMooCow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:37 pm

jasonh300 wrote: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


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?
MisterMooCow
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby BlazeTool » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:35 pm

Just an FYI for anyone following along. Discussion of routing off and back on via ramps has also popped up over here, referring to this interchange. For the record, the path via ramps is 1082 meters, via the freeway is 1100 meters.
BlazeTool
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby CBenson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:01 pm

First be aware that the freeway cited in that post can back up to bumper-to-bumper traffic at times. Based on my recollection (take it for what its worth), there was a time that there were frequent URs at that interchange that showed waze would route off/on there, but that was largely solved by removing the city names from the freeway. I don't recall any recent URs about off/on routing there although MysticCobra was routed that way a month or so ago*. We could use the crossed ramps at this interchange if the off/on routing seems to be a problem.

* Based on MysticCobra's description that he was going from 97 into Ft Meade, I had thought he was routed around the 1298 m westbound freeway segment over 1370 m of ramps (although, there have been some edits to interchange so the configuration may have been slightly different).
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.1.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10004
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 2205 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby mysticcobra » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:30 pm

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.
Jimmy
Samsung Galaxy S4-Android 4.3, Waze 3.8.7.0
Northern VA
mysticcobra
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:04 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby MisterMooCow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:09 pm

So, just to bring this full circle-- I think the "be sure to restrict" paragraph in the wiki page is too strongly worded. Perhaps something like "Until the routing engine is refined, you may find it necessary to restrict..." with indications of the pathological cases that might make it necessary. Maybe even throw in the "Jason method" of crossed-exits as an alternative.
MisterMooCow
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 34 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 4.1.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10004
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 2205 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.
Image
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Regional Coordinator, South-Central Region
U.S. Champ, Global Champ
Waze FAQ ... Best Map Editing Practice
Ask me about Louisiana or Mississippi Editors Chat in Google Hangouts!
jasonh300
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7528
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 393 times
Been thanked: 961 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby MisterMooCow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:48 pm

BlazeTool wrote:Just an FYI for anyone following along. Discussion of routing off and back on via ramps has also popped up over here, referring to this interchange. For the record, the path via ramps is 1082 meters, via the freeway is 1100 meters.


I just got around to reading this, where there is a post that says:

jasonh300 wrote:There's coding to prevent that type of routing if the city name is the same on all segment before, during and after the ramps. However, city names often change at those junctions, so the simple solution is to remove the city name and therefore remove all doubt.


So I'm having trouble seeing how the "put turn restrictions on straight-through to prevent ramp-routing" directive isn't further qualified for pathological cases. What am I missing?
MisterMooCow
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby MisterMooCow » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:45 am

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...
MisterMooCow
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 34 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.
Image
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Regional Coordinator, South-Central Region
U.S. Champ, Global Champ
Waze FAQ ... Best Map Editing Practice
Ask me about Louisiana or Mississippi Editors Chat in Google Hangouts!
jasonh300
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7528
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 393 times
Been thanked: 961 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron