Ah, I see. So that would be a consideration on whether to use an unnamed segment, but would be an example where leaving the first ramp unnamed may be inappropriate.

My personal view is that this has always been a California issue. As long as the language doesn't mess things up for the rest of country, I'm happy with whatever works for CA.

The only reason that I am aware of that the existing guidance suggests the use of exit numbers when they are assigned but do yet appear on the sign is to accommodate the practice of Caltrans assigning exit numbers and then signing the exits on a sporadic when its convenient basis.

As far as I'm aware what's good for 49 of 50 states is simply to use what's on the sign. It didn't really affect the rest of us to add guidance to use assigned exit numbers even when they do not yet appear on the sign. Thus, it makes no sense to me to have the guidance if doesn't work for California. We can debate whether the guidance should be in the national or the California wiki. But leaving language that is not working for California in the national wiki does not make sense to me.

I would appreciate some clarification from the wiki masters on content on this page relating to ramp naming.

Specifically, the principle for ramp naming is, from the wiki page:

The name of the ramp should match the exit or entrance signage as closely as possible.

Later, in discussing ramp segments that serves subsequent exits, wiki says that in certain circumstances:

(...) it may be advisable not to name the first exit ramp, but rather name only the ramps which are the first one to a distinct destination.

The wiki gives the necessary condition for this to apply viz. that the initial signage at an exit/fork has component texts that are identical to the subsequent downstream signage on the forks or exits (so that initial instruction inherits text from downstream that matches a component of the initial sign exactly), but it doesn't give sufficient conditions for this guidance to be applicable.

When, specifically, is this advisable? After some discussion, a Canadian champ advised me that, at least for Canada, in this situation, a no name ramp is only called for when to otherwise put the complete text of the signage would make the instruction too long and unwieldy to display on the device or pronounce for TTS in the time available. In this particular case, we are to use a no name ramp. In all other cases, I am advised, we are to use the full signage text on the ramp name.

What is the guidance for USA? Can this bullet point be expanded to give the precise and complete circumstances in which a no-name ramp segment may be advisable? At the moment, I believe it is open to interpretation.

Thanks

That's not the same bullet point I'm asking about, though... I'm asking about the one that says:

If the exit off the main interstate or highway serves multiple exits further down the road, it may be advisable not to name the first exit ramp, but rather name only the ramps which are the first one to a distinct destination. The Waze client will give all the proper exit and keep left or right instructions to guide the driver to the correct exit, even if the first one is not named. That said, this should only be done if the signage for the first ramp is the same as that on the subsequent, named ramp.

qwaletee wrote: 1) If it causes long text, will it fit on screen?
2) If it causes long text, will it be spoken at the correct moment and finished in time for the next instruction?
3) Will the length of the prompt distract the driver too much?
4) Will the length of the prompt cause the driver to have difficulty checking the sign for a match - usually not a problem unless there are multiple signs on the same overhead or closely spaced (so shortening may actually make it easier to spot the correct sign)
5) Will we give too many/too few instructions, or will we be too repetitious?

These are precisely the kinds of considerations that illustrate the need for the wiki to expand a bit more. It does no good to simply say "it may be advisable..." without telling editors about the types of situations in which it may be advisable. Your questions here show clearly the direction ones lines of questioning should be taking when considering a no name ramp and I think it would be very helpful for them or something like them to be included in the guidance.

As I understand it now, the guidance should read something like:

If the exit off the main interstate or highway serves multiple exits further down the road, it may be advisable not to name the first exit ramp, but rather name only the ramps which are the first one to a distinct destination. The Waze client will give all the proper exit and keep left or right instructions to guide the driver to the correct exit, even if the first one is not named.

This should only be done if the signage for the first ramp is the same as that on the subsequent, named ramp, and only if doing so will improve the clarity of instructions given to the driver.

At least, this way, the guiding principle would be clearly laid out. Examples of generic scenarios in which a no name ramp is appropriate could further be helpful.

CBenson wrote:I'm all for clarity. The way I read the instructions is that you can't really match a sign like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9448776 ... 312!8i6656

So you leave that ramp blank to pick up the instructions after the ramp splits to distinct destinations.

This is an analogous situation to that which led me to this thread in the first place. It appears Canada guidance might deviate from USA, as, if I understand our guidance correctly, in this situation you illustrate, we would be told to include the entire ramp name. That is, if we are being guided by the principle of clarity of instructions, the interpretation of the Canadian champs is that it is clearer in this case to give the entire signage than partial.

CBenson wrote:

qwaletee wrote:If I had to: Exit 7B-7A: I-95 / I-495 / Beltway / Baltimore / Richmond

But it helps to have the specific exit to know which lane to be in. Better to leave blank and just get exit right to Exit 7B or exit right to Exit 7A instructions. Before the leaving a ramp segment blank worked correctly this exit would generate many URs. Now it doesn't.

This was precisely the logic that led to my questioning of the guidance and is the crux of the matter. If this logic represents the consensus opinion of the US waze champs, I implore you to add it as a specific example of when to use an unnamed ramp to the wiki - it's an example that comes up over and over again on big highways, and it is clearly a source of disagreement and/or confusion.

Does the additional clarity of being given a specific instruction (and implicitly a specific lane to be in) outweigh the negatives of no longer reproducing all the BGS(s) text?

EDIT: combined two posts into one

qwaletee wrote:Nagamasa, we don't do lane guidance anyway.

Is this the consensus position of the US champs? I would like to try to propose an edit to the wiki page (following the procedure you helpfully outlined above), and because the lane guidance issue seems to me to be a point of confusion, if it's policy that ramp naming should *not* be guided by any considerations of attempted lane guidance, then I would like that included in the wiki. I have no idea whether the issue has been sorted to the satisfaction of the US champs, but if it has, please let me know.

I understand a future iteration of JB is meant to address lane guidance, so this may all become moot in the near (?) future, but in the meantime, it's a real source of confusion, and a simple line in the wiki could do a lot to alleviate it.

So, to recap the various scenarios that have been offered (and a possible draft for the wiki, if deemed appropriate?)

In the general case, the exit ramp name should match the text on the exit signage as closely as possible. However, in the case of exit ramps that serve multiple further exits, leaving the first ramp unnamed, and inheriting the instruction from the next routed segment name, may be appropriate in the following circumstances:
- when the length of text on the first ramp BGS(s) is too long for the client device to display
- when TTS is too long to provide the next instruction in time
- when the length of TTS has the potential to be too distracting to the driver
- when the length of instruction might cause confusion to the driver in finding a match when multiple signs are present
- when closely spaced junctions cause repetitious identical instructions that may be distracting/annoying to the driver
- in complex multi-lane exits where a measure of lane guidance may be provided

Despite the foregoing, analysis, context sensitivity, and the good judgement of editors should take precedence: the goal is to provide the clearest navigation instruction to the driver.

Would something like this be helpful? Are there other situations where unnamed ramps might also be advisable?

Oops - my bad. It's a case when it may *not* be appropriate! i.e. it would cause two identical instructions, which, if the unnamed ramp was short enough, might cause them to be issued in short succession, possibly making the driver think the app is buggy.