Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Moderators: krankyd, 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).
Image
New Orleans, Louisiana
Regional Coordinator, South-Central Region
Waze FAQ ... Best Map Editing Practice ... Waze chat on IRC.
jasonh300
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 628 times

Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:36 pm

We've been discussing the need for straight-through prohibition for off-to-on ramps at intersections over here.

The junction style guide page mentions that there is a ramp transition penalty.

The limited access interchange style guide page says that there is a need to put a straight-through prohibition on to "prevent the routing server from trying to route someone off the freeway just to get back on it".

Is there really ever a case that the routing goes off and back on without something else causing it (slow average speed on the freeway vs. ramp, client "prefer shorter distance over time", hidden/latent restrictions, etc.)? If there's a penalty, then (all other things considered), why would it ever route straight through?

At the very least, there needs to be some consistency between these two pages.
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » 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?
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » 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.
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » 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?
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » 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...
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:13 am

Understood --and my preference would be to delete them with wild abandon.

Can you suggest a re-write that indicates that there is not a consensus on whether or not such turn restrictions are necessary?
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:28 pm

Check the thread posted in the original message.


We have hundreds of intersections like this in Ohio. I've never seen a straight-through routing that couldn't be explained by faulty GPS receiver (or other user-specific app issues), "ghost" segments (or other map issues), or other transient problems.

We don't mark the restrictions in Ohio. Ergo, there is no consensus on doing so.

Jeff

[Edit: I think I'd be way less invested in this topic if someone could cite a recent conversation with waze staff that goes something like "yeah, there's a known problem in the routing engine that can cause that; go with a workaround until we get that ironed out". Otherwise, I can't help feeling like there's a bit of "cargo cult" driving this. ]
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:19 pm

It would be great if someone could post some current URs where this happening -- it's really tough to explain which of the various map issues was responsible for something that's happened a while ago (especially given the different back-end infrastructures and and features/bugs that have come and gone).

It would be even better if one of the "champs" could get a reading on this from someone who has actually seen code.


Jeff
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Junction style guide: ramp restriction inconsistency

Postby jhfrontz » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:27 pm

jhfrontz wrote:
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?


And I've yet to see anything in response to this posting-- which suggests that if the city names are the same on the off/on-ramps, there will be no routing (yet another example of something else that is causing the bad routing).
jhfrontz
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 22 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users