[Update] Road Name/USA

Moderators: MapSir, USA Champs

Re: Unexpected wayfinder instruction

Postby davielde » Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:51 pm

kentsmith9 wrote:Yes. And also note that without it you get "Bus" :)

As I said I don't really care, but note that not everyone uses voice guidance (like me). So I (and others without TTS) only see "BUS" and sometimes it does not match Business on the BGS. I am sure no accidents will result from this. :mrgreen:


"US-90 BUS S for U.S. Highway 90 Business, Southbound
(note that BUS should be all uppercase for TTS to pronounce as "business". "Bus", "bus", etc. will pronounce as "Bus".) "

As for accidents, as we tell UR reporters on occasion, sometimes you just have to use common sense. Please don't hit any buses on the special BUS highway or veer back onto the main highway at the last second at the exit ramp assuming you would otherwise be jumping onto a special BUS-only highway.
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 469 times
Been thanked: 758 times

Re: Unexpected wayfinder instruction

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:41 pm

davielde wrote:
sketch wrote:There's a big difference between the perception of "BUS" in a route number and of "Bus" in a road name. Plus, how many bus-only highways are there? Is that really a thing? I know there are bus-specific U turn segments and all, but not as a part of a US/state highway designation. I don't think it's confusing at all, especially now that TTS says "Business" there.


I just made the change to "BUS" on the wiki. Do we think that clarification should be offered there stating that uppercase is required?
US-90 BUS S for U.S. Highway 90 Business, Southbound (uppercase BUS required for TTS)
or something like that?

Yes. And also note that without it you get "Bus" :)

As I said I don't really care, but note that not everyone uses voice guidance (like me). So I (and others without TTS) only see "BUS" and sometimes it does not match Business on the BGS. I am sure no accidents will result from this. :mrgreen:
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5550
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1481 times
Been thanked: 1691 times

Re: Unexpected wayfinder instruction

Postby davielde » Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:29 pm

sketch wrote:There's a big difference between the perception of "BUS" in a route number and of "Bus" in a road name. Plus, how many bus-only highways are there? Is that really a thing? I know there are bus-specific U turn segments and all, but not as a part of a US/state highway designation. I don't think it's confusing at all, especially now that TTS says "Business" there.


I just made the change to "BUS" on the wiki. Do we think that clarification should be offered there stating that uppercase is required?
US-90 BUS S for U.S. Highway 90 Business, Southbound (uppercase BUS required for TTS)
or something like that?
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 469 times
Been thanked: 758 times

Re: Unexpected wayfinder instruction

Postby sketch » Wed Aug 20, 2014 6:59 pm

PesachZ wrote:A question about proper naming convention popped up in another thread. I was hoping to get some consensus from senior editor here. I believe a letter should only be escaped (enclosed in single quotes) if it otherwise would expand to an abbreviation (I.e. ENSW), or some multi letter combinations. Others have different opinions. I quoted the question below and linked to it above.
DwarfLord wrote:It's a good best-practice question whether initials that are currently unallocated to any expansion should be escaped anyway. My gut feel is to escape them as a matter of habit so that they (a) provide a general always-right example to other editors of how to escape initials, and (b) are more resistant to future changes in the expansion list. The flip side is that escaping initials when not strictly necessary can cause confusion as well. The answer's not obvious to me...

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

I agree that escapes should NOT be used unless absolutely necessary. First of all, quotes do funny things to pronunciation/timing when adjacent to slashes (e.g., "to I-10 W / 'N' O Intl Airport" wasn't pronounced quite right). Also, it looks AWFUL in client. Wherever possible I choose to spell out "New Orleans" rather than deal with that.

kentsmith9 wrote:
davielde wrote:If I recall, that discussion was earlier in the year when BUS was not pronouncing as "business", so we updated the wiki to spell it out until the TTS could be corrected. There may be some outstanding issues with BUS E, BUS W, BUS N, and BUS S that could be re-tested, but BUS itself would be a safe change as the TTS has now worked for a few months. I don't see a reason why the wiki could not be updated at this point assuming the different directions test okay.

I was not aware TTS now says "business" from "BUS".

Although I also thought part of the problem was a potential confusion between just the visual reading of BUS also meaning the big multi-passenger vehicles. Business prevented people from thinking it was a Bus lane or something similar.

I don't REALLY care either way, I just want to be sure we get consensus. Maybe we can start a new thread specific to Business spelled out or shortened to BUS referencing the original discussion and get it finalized.

"BUS" was added a few months ago, finally.

It should only be used in the context of highway designations. But it makes sense there. I believe highway naming should be standardized in this regard: "US-90 BUS W", "I-94 BUS N", "US-27 ALT", "LA-413 SPUR", "US-41A BYP", "US-21 CONN".

There's a big difference between the perception of "BUS" in a route number and of "Bus" in a road name. Plus, how many bus-only highways are there? Is that really a thing? I know there are bus-specific U turn segments and all, but not as a part of a US/state highway designation. I don't think it's confusing at all, especially now that TTS says "Business" there.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6132
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1580 times
Been thanked: 2130 times

Re: Unexpected wayfinder instruction

Postby PesachZ » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:08 pm

A question about proper naming convention popped up in another thread. I was hoping to get some consensus from senior editor here. I believe a letter should only be escaped (enclosed in single quotes) if it otherwise would expand to an abbreviation (I.e. ENSW), or some multi letter combinations. Others have different opinions. I quoted the question below and linked to it above.

DwarfLord wrote:
PesachZ wrote:PS The AGC name could probably just be "SR-1 / to U C Santa Cruz" as U and C are not listed abbreviations for anything, so the quotes don't block any expansions.

It's a good best-practice question whether initials that are currently unallocated to any expansion should be escaped anyway. My gut feel is to escape them as a matter of habit so that they (a) provide a general always-right example to other editors of how to escape initials, and (b) are more resistant to future changes in the expansion list. The flip side is that escaping initials when not strictly necessary can cause confusion as well. The answer's not obvious to me...




Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4450
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1993 times
Been thanked: 2273 times

Re: [Update] Road Name/USA

Postby qwaletee » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:12 pm

Done!

I added the following sentence to the paragraph: In particular, use cardinal (directional) names on divided highways for both primary and alternate names.

Also, while I was at it, I changed wording for clarity and brevity, but with no real change in meaning, here:

from: that currently shield generation is not currently operating at 100%, so some areas do not have the shields on all roads. Waze has said that there will eventually be a process allowing map editors to add shields to road segments in a way that is not connected to the name OF that segment

to: Note that map shield generation is not implemented for all situations, so some roads will not display a shield. Waze has said that there will eventually be a process allowing map editors to add shields to road segments in a way that is not connected to the name of that segment.
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2922
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1130 times

Re: [Update] Road Name/USA

Postby Nagamasa » Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:28 pm

sketch and Nagamasa wrote:"Ensure all alternate names include trailing cardinals indicating the direction of travel, especially if the primary name itself includes a trailing cardinal indicating the direction of travel.".


Can we enshrine this into the wiki?
Nagamasa
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:11 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: [Update] Road Name/USA

Postby PhantomSoul » Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:54 am

We might have a few jughandles on undivided roads in Jersey, but I wouldn't go changing the wiki over that. NJ jughandles typically appear on divided roads, which if split, don't cause any BDP problems. So, I'm pretty sure that situation is trivial enough that we can handle it on a case-by-case basis when we find ones with a problem.
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 516 times

Re: [Update] Road Name/USA

Postby sketch » Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:43 pm

Neither is better than the other generally, except that putting directional-bearing alt names on one-way roads seems absurd, and may conceivably even cause problems in places where, say, some streets are addressed à la "2201 Highway 13 West"—not 'westbound', but 'west of some central road'...

The question of which is better, if we take it as a given that we always want BDP to be active, depends entirely on the circumstances. If a highway becomes divided through a town, and re-undivides on the other side of town, then it is easier to add the no-cardinal alt name to both—though, unless it's a one-way pair in town, the highway will usually have some local name that doesn't have directionals on it anyway. On the other hand, where a divided highway becomes undivided through a town (e.g., ditches the median for a center shared turn lane), it would be simpler to add the directional names as alt names on the undivided part—though again, probably not necessary, assuming that there is a local name through town anyway that does not have directionals on it.

I think, in many cases, it is moot, and to be honest this is overkill as a general rule. Again, "really, this is not necessary on divided roadways unless some U turn somewhere requires more than one segment to carry out. In other words, typically it's a freeway problem."

The countervailing motives here are (1) "don't allow BDP to overreact to the desire to turn around" and (2) "allow BDP to function". Generally, both are freeway/expressway problems, and most if not all freeways/expressways should be divided anyway.

Starting with (1),

The guidance that "all alternate names" must include cardinal directions where primary names do may be unnecessarily broad, then, as a U turn on an uncontrolled-access divided roadway is typically made in the median, over a single segment. This is not prevented by BDP.

Really, the guidance is only necessary where turning around would require more than one segment off the highway—typically, a handful of ramps and one or two segments of the other served by the interchange. This only really happens on limited- or controlled-access highways, although there are exceptions. But the exceptions can lead to a different problem.

One exception might be found here. Easily the best way to effect a U turn on Clearview is to take advantage of the cloverleaf interchange. Continuing either north or south to the next opportunity may require waiting through at least two traffic lights, some of which have very long wait times during the rush. But "Clearview Pkwy" doesn't have any cardinals, so Waze won't give this route. What is the solution here? Add arbitrary cardinals for a road that isn't even a numbered highway?

Not as a general rule, I don't think. Take this section of nearby N Causeway Blvd, which technically qualifies as an expressway. I suppose there are worse things than adding N and S to the end of the name, but "N Causeway Blvd N" and "N Causeway Blvd S" seems like we are adding some confusing elements for no purpose (because the interchange design means it can't be used for U turns anyway).

Maybe the better solution is to add a 'routing alt name' to all the necessary segments in that interchange so it isn't considered a detour. Not sure if that would work.

On to (2),

While it is admirable to want BDP to function, is it really necessary in all cases? In the Clearview example above, say for purpose of argument we added the cardinals to Clearview just for that interchange, to allow U turns. Any traffic situation that takes you off Clearview and puts you back on it within 5 km would have to take you pretty far out of the way to another Interstate crossing. The situation on Clearview must be pretty bad to make it worth it to go that far out of the way for something faster. In this situation, is it really important that the other route be so much quicker as to override the BDP penalty? Or is it not enough that the other route is marginally quicker and exceptionally less frustrating?

That is one example, and it won't be the same everywhere, granted. But there are plenty other examples like Clearview where BDP is really unnecessary, and not always for the same reason. Consider the rural state highway that becomes divided for a quarter-mile stretch through a freeway interchange. Assume for purposes of discussion that it is desirable to divide this stretch on the Waze map (it often is). What do we lose by adding directions to the divided part? BDP with a 500 m threshold. In most such situations there is no other way to get across that freeway for at least a mile, often several miles, in either direction, so there is no feasible scenario in which that BDP does anything anyway.

BDP is designed primarily to prevent off-and-on-again routing on freeways. The other benefits, if they are benefits, are ancillary at best, and I for one would expect and hope to be taken off a Major Highway to be routed down a nearby Street if it would save me a minute or two.

So, in short,

I am not sure such a rule is strictly necessary except on freeways and expressways where there is a genuine problem with using directionless alt names (and no real reason to do so anyway, as freeways and expressways by definition shouldn't have addresses on them). Otherwise, other places where it might be beneficial to neuter BDP (e.g., Clearview Pkwy, supra) should be handled case-by-case.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6132
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1580 times
Been thanked: 2130 times

Re: [Update] Road Name/USA

Postby DwarfLord » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:07 pm

An interesting question is whether it is better -- in cases where one does want to ensure BDP is triggerable -- to add both cardinals as alt names on the undivided segments, or to add an un-cardinalized alt name on both sides of the divided segments. I've seen both approaches, but only one is necessary in any given location to accomplish that purpose.

I lean a bit towards the latter, as it is slightly simpler and more intuitive. But I don't feel too strongly about it.

A related point is that it is helpful to ensure valid U-turns are enabled on undivided mH and MH road types with continuous names. If they aren't, Waze will heavily penalize a faux U-turn through neighboring streets. The penalty is so severe that Waze may choose a significantly different route that will be nonsensical to commuters and other familiar locals. I have seen this happen.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 915 times
Been thanked: 1199 times

Next

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tonestertm