No through traffic

Moderator: Unholy

Re: No through traffic

Postby CBenson » Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:58 pm

I agree with sketch. I addition to waze getting better at turning drivers around, there is the issue of obtaining good speed data for these little used roads in areas that may have bad GPS reception, bad network reception or both. In this case both Morrell and Morrill have SV images. Stepping through the SV can show if they were dirt roads when the SV car passed through. Stepping through can also show significant deviations between the SV reported location and the position of the road on the waze map. I don't know if these deviations impede the gathering of speed data for these roads.
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2355 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby sketch » Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:05 pm

Not a fan. They're public roads. This isn't a problem yet but it will be once private roads are differentiated in the client: If we start setting public roads as "private", users will see public roads displayed as if they are private roads, then people will see private roads on the map and think they're public, and may drive on them anyway. I just don't like it.

It should be within a GPS user's expectations that, if they drive against the route or miss a turn, the GPS will sometimes route them in a weird way to get turned around again. Maybe I expect too much from users, but I am always skeptical of turn-around routing in rural areas.

The real solution would be "Turn around when possible" like the big players seem to have.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1479 times
Been thanked: 2024 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby DwarfLord » Sun Aug 10, 2014 9:46 pm

With regard to the thread title -- "No through traffic" -- another special case has come up.

A mountainous area near me with a mix of good and poor roads sees occasional URs from people routed onto the poor roads. Usually this is due to drivers overshooting and Waze trying to get them turned around. Once it appeared to happen because Waze simply didn't know how slow the road was. This stands to reason if roads are so bad Wazers never go that way, and/or cell coverage is spotty.

In particular this has come up for Morrell Rd and Morrill Rd on either side of Summit Rd:

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 957&zoom=4

Recently an editor saw some of the URs being worked and solved the problem by setting the questionable roads to Private. The editor locked them to 3, I assume to prevent another well-meaning editor from changing them back since the roads are actually public and unrestricted (as far as I know).

Question: is it an appropriate use of the Private road type to prevent Waze from using roads that, while completely public and unrestricted, have been reported to be of poor quality? If not, what is a better solution?

[EDIT/p.s. I have asked the UR reporters more than once if any dirt road sections are involved, but have yet to get a response. If some part of these roads can be marked as dirt, that would of course solve the problem.]
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 1161 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby ottonomy » Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:28 am

HavanaDay wrote:I also defer to driving79 or txemt because as said before I have been trying to prove this theory wrong for a while now but everytime I come up with something to test it doesn't seem to route out correctly.

I have no particular angle in pursuing this, other than understanding what the causes are. For this reason, I would like to be given a specific example of "not routing out correctly", so that I can mentally process what might at the root of it.
ottonomy
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Los Angeles CA
Has thanked: 1322 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby HavanaDay » Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:17 am

sketch wrote:I'm extra-curious about HavanaDay's statement that the large private installations method leads to weirdness getting out. Isn't the large private installation method only supposed to use a private road on the entrances? So then why would any of that matter when exiting the facility?

If I said that I misspoke. What I meant to say was that using a two way private road on large private installations tends/sometimes does not give the most efficient route out of said installation.

I also defer to driving79 or txemt because as said before I have been trying to prove this theory wrong for a while now but everytime I come up with something to test it doesn't seem to route out correctly.
HavanaDay
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Midland, NC
Has thanked: 215 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby sketch » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:26 am

I am also curious about this. Theoretically, routing out of an all-private cluster of roads should be fine, since there should only be one transition penalty at the moment you leave the cluster, and that's it. So it shouldn't matter where the penalty comes, because the penalty only comes once and will be equal on all alternative routes. Unless the transition penalty isn't actually uniform — that could be the problem. Or, maybe it's just a weirdness with the way the A* search algorithm works. I might ask the routing dev about it if we determine it's actually a problem.

I'm extra-curious about HavanaDay's statement that the large private installations method leads to weirdness getting out. Isn't the large private installation method only supposed to use a private road on the entrances? So then why would any of that matter when exiting the facility?
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1479 times
Been thanked: 2024 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby vectorspace » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:13 am

I agree -- I just was prompting txemt and Driving79 to expand details on the brief comments I had heard about this all-private-street issue so that the rest of us could learn from their experience.
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby ottonomy » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:38 pm

vectorspace wrote:Exploring another topic, I wonder if txemt and Driving79 can expand on their observations of how neighborhoods marked with Private Roads do not route well. This would help us understand how to address this in parallel with understanding the issue. We might also update the Private Installations page.


This morning, I asked txemt the following (in an off-forum convo), and he thought your input would be useful. Since you've brought it up here, I'll ask it again, slightly edited. Please let me know if this needs clarification:

As to the nature of the out-routing issues you've found when areas are set to all-Private: Is it a matter of Waze choosing the wrong exit, but using a path through the complex which would be direct, but just not optimal, because it can't tell the difference between better collector roads and lesser residential roads? (Instead of routing to closest exit, trying to route a straighter course, through the installation, perhaps through non optimal roads)

Or is it just random weirdness, where the routing seems confused and wacky?
ottonomy
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Los Angeles CA
Has thanked: 1322 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby vectorspace » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:08 pm

Exploring another topic, I wonder if txemt and Driving79 can expand on their observations of how neighborhoods marked with Private Roads do not route well. This would help us understand how to address this in parallel with understanding the issue. We might also update the Private Installations page.
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby kentsmith9 » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:54 pm

CBenson wrote:No through traffic signs are inherently vague.
kentsmith9 wrote:The sign is at the entrance of the street meant for everyone entering the street. If only the ramp was subject to the sign, it would have been moved to the final few feet of the ramp where ONLY the ramp traffic would see the sign.

I disagree, if the sign were on the final few feet of the ramp, you would have people arguing that the turns onto Sawtelle are included and the entire exit is only for local traffic.

Even so, I think the example from Scotts Valley above is a clear indication that the sign at the entrance of the street restricts all traffic entering from any direction, not just the direction that is easiest to see it.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5522
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1466 times
Been thanked: 1670 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]