qwaletee wrote:Wrong, wrong, wrong. Mega-events use the same mechanism on the routing server, just a different interface for reporting them. This wasn't about ease of use of the reporting mechanism, it was about effectiveness and consequences. I didn't trust the mechanism until it has been proven over a longer period. Although we were arguing vociferously about it, it turned out that Marc and I had similar positions, though he was more worried about wasted miles where there are limited routes.

PesachZ wrote: To be fair there have been reports of the closure tool failing though, so perhaps this bears further discussion.

kentsmith9 wrote:Non sequitur:

sketch has thanked the devil.

sketch_thanks_devil.png

Just kidding buddy!

CBenson wrote:I remain concerned that the Road closures/Overview list is reflecting US standards that are not applicable everywhere. The Road Closures form method is written in a US centric manner and has a Road Closures Form link that I can not open.

Should the standards for reporting a "Mega Event" be the same everywhere. The event form lists seven categories - Global Event, National Event, Local Event, HY Local Event, Traffic Construction Related Event, Mega Crisis Event and Other Event.

In areas where there are Champs are subscribed to the Mega Events Mailing list, it seems that there ought to set forth a process to ensure that the closure sheets for submitted events are completed. In such areas any event with scheduled road closures can be handled through the Major traffic event form.

In areas that maintain a construction/emergency road closure form, the Traffic Construction Related Event should not be used on the Mega Event Form. If a construction related event is a Carmageddon type event then waze staff/champs can make the call to treat the construction as an event, but there is no real reason to have it submitted that way on the events form.

In areas that have Champs that subscribe to the Mega Event Mailing list and have a construction road closure form, there is really no reason to use scheduled restrictions in place of mega events or road closures. In fact, it should be discouraged as editing roads that are listed for closure through the mega event or road closure channels can cause problems. The issue here is that the average editor doesn't know what is submitted for closure as a event or construction road closure, but can see whether there is a scheduled restriction. I suspect many editors naturally think that they might as well add the scheduled restrictions just to be sure that the routing will be correct.

CBenson wrote:Is the [ROADWORKS] tag appropriate for such URs?

CBenson wrote:Hmm, I've seen events for closures in very small towns. I'll accept (or delegate) the responsibility for working with any event that closes roads in the Mid-Atlantic region. I guess I'm just thinking that any event for which there are closures published more than a day or two in advance can be handled through the events form.

CBenson wrote:I agree that almost all construction is better handled in the closures form (in jurisdictions that have one). But the flip side is that almost all events are better handled in the events form.

The question is how to handle smaller event. Say a small town parade or road race that closes a few a roads. Do we agree they should be reported through the event form?

I'm not sure that the closures form is more accessible in case things change. Each event gets its own sheet that can be shared and updated.

qwaletee wrote:Do you have all that verified? Or is this opinion?

For example the info on % of usual traffic density verified? Because I saw a closure lifted with what seemed like very little traffic locally to me. I guess it was a % - you know the old joke, zero is a number, too.

And don't be so sure about snapping either. We know that the detailed analysis takes place in the drive update server, which is not real-time. We know closure lifts are real time.

And automatically reinstated closures? This is absolutely the first I am hearing about them.