Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by qwaletee
I believe following is what has been agreed to in the last few days of posts:

Any restricted segments will be done by using partial restrictions - vehicle types, by ticking all vehicle types except the two HOV entries. This has the effect of banning "private cars" from routing there, and all routes are considered private cars today, so this replaces the historical use of PLR for such purposes.

Any HOV that does get mapped will use restrictions only on the entrance segments. Note that in the historical PLR HOVs, once on the road there was no penalty to stay on it, whereas with partial restrictions, there appear to be complications even when already on the road, hence entrance-only. While not urgent to convert PLR-based HOV to the new style, when they are converted, the road type will be changed, but restrictions will not be added to those HOV segments, only to the entrances to the HOV.

For lanes that are HOV only during certain hours, we will use segment time restrictions on the entrances in combination with the private vehicle restriction. (I.e., one single entry for the restriction table combining the time period when HOV is in effect with the private vehicle restriction) -- obviously, multiple similar entries if there is more than one HOV period.

For reversible lanes, we will also use time restrictions. (Suggestion: in this case, we should also set the time-only restrictions on the HOV segments, with no vehicle type restrictions.)

--- END OF CONSENSUS ---


--- SUMMARY OF REMAINING OPEN ITEM IN DISCUSSION ---
Exits have been discussed, but there's no consensus to add them. They do create a double penalty (enter/exit), which might be "safer" (double penalty) and also might allow gaming the system for drivers who might use the HOV close to the start of a restricted period. However, there are risks involved, such as a single incorrectly set restriction causing funneling of all HOV lane drivers drivers through a single HOV exit that Waze sees as allowed, instead of sending each driver to the most appropriate exit for his or her route.

(My take: we already are going to rely on drivers using their judgement to override Waze and enter the HOV, we don't need to nanny the drivers for illegal behavior that they themselves should be aware of. However, this might have an impact if the HOV has very long stretches between exits or is very unique compared to non-HOV options. A driver may not realize that by taking HOV, he is leading himself into a bad exit guidance situation in those scenarios.)

-----------------------

I have tried to make this as accurate a summary of the previous discussion as I could, with the exception of the two parentheticals where I added my own editorial take. Please let me know fi I got this right.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
Last edited by qwaletee on Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
One additional wrinkle about the start of enforcement times. A car which meets HOV requirements that gets routed (purposely or by override) onto the HOV during the permissive period may be told to leave the HOV prematurely to avoid crossing the (restricted) exit prior to the enforcement period.

We thus have to choose between restricting exits for the positives and leaving them unrestricted to avoid the negatives

If implemented:

Positives I am aware of:
* for mixed-use HOV lanes, can route non-HOV drivers off at the beginning f a restricted time period
* if non-HOV routes get very expensive for some reason e.g., traffic jams (likely given the fact that DOT decided to provide an HOV there!), the additional penalty adds safety to prevent HOV routing
* smarter routing (per sketch -- not sure what this is, may merely refer to some of the other bullets here)
* other benefits of additional penalty?

Negatives:
* Will lead legitimate HOV drivers off the HOV prematurely if they are driving it close to the start of a restricted period
* If incorrectly implemented (never happens, right?), can lead to some really weird routing/bottlenecking

If exits are not implemented
Positives:
* Legitimate HOV drivers will not be lead off prematurely during a transition period
* More forgiving of editor error in setting up partial restrictions systematically

Negatives:
* Non-HOV drivers who enter legally but close to the start of restrictions will not be warned to exit (a bit of nannying)
* If non-HOV routes become very expensive, single penalty may not be enough to avoid Waze rerouting onto HOV while double penalty may prevent it

Are there any other negatives/positives on the HOV exit restrictions? Also, has anyone actually tested routing with the double penalty or with full HOV restricted (i.e., definitely tested whether it actually routes off drivers who have decided to route on)?
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
CBenson wrote: ...snip...
qwaletee wrote:For reversible lanes, we will also use time restrictions. (Suggestion: in this case, we should also set the time-only restrictions on the HOV segments, with no vehicle type restrictions.)
I'm not sure I understand the suggestion. Do you mean set the HOV/time restrictions on the entrances and the repeat the time restrictions but not the HOV restrictions on the reversible lanes?
...snip...
What I mean is that for the HOV lanes (not the entrances and exits), in situations where we would make the HOV unrestricted were it not reversible, we should add time restrictions to cover the reversible lanes, but not HOV-versus-private vehicle restrictions. This mirrors the standard (non-reversible) lanes in that there is no vehicle restriction. In theory, we don't really need to have time restrictions on them either, because the entrances could implement the time restrictions, but adding it to both does no harm and seems safer.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
The main refinements/changes since my Friday posts:

1) Consensus added for adding vehicle restrictions to exits where there are entrance vehicle restrictions. There's some discussion about whether this applies to all cases or only some, but it seems we're going for all cases where there are entrance restrictions.

2) Consensus building for extended start of time restrictions in case of mistiming of routing or traffic building on HOV preventing timely exits. I have seen the figure of 5-10 minutes, but I think that would depend on circumstance, such as an HOV lane that often gets backed up, or a long HOV segment that might need more buffer. Perhaps we should propose a minimum of 10 minutes, more if circumstances warrant.

3) Where HOV-2 is allowed (unticked), HOV-3. Where HOV-2 or HOV-3 is allowed, motorcycle should also always be allowed (unticked) for USA.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
Hi, Mark,

This sort of thing has been discussed a number of times before. It is unlikely to get any priority from Waze, and would be difficult to maintain (there would have to be a function to maintain the school calendar, associate it with an area, deal with overlapping school areas on different schedules).

If you want to be super nice, you can create a complex date based schedule to keep it perfect, but mostly don't bother.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
I just noticed in Sketch's post that the MapRaider shield's forward wheel looks just like a beard. Conspiracy?
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
I updated the HOV "update" box to the following:

{{Mbox|text=These guidelines have been updated {{as of|October 2014}} to prepare for the upcoming HOV features. The old method was to map these lanes as Parking Lot Roads. This new method below should be used when mapping new lanes. There is no rush to redo existing lanes to make them compliant; do so only if you are working on them anyway, or are doing a general refresh in the area.}}

I primarily made the language more direct. Dif: https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/index.php?ti ... ldid=83459

Also, two ideas for additional revisions:

1) I was reminded about the revamp I proposed for the HOV page about six months (I went on break in middle of the conversation). Consensus has shifted since I wrote it, so I'm not considering using the content in it. However, I would still like to consider the format, using a table to show the major variations and how to approach them (reversible, part time HOV restrictions, separate exit/entrance systems, etc.). Thoughts?

2) Do we ever need to set guidance to prevent users from wandering into an HOV lane? This came up recently, with some differences of opinion. Either way, consider adding guidance (yes, no, or conditional).
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
I would be OK with any of the above, they're all better than zero.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
Reversible actually needs more time, but that depends on how they mark the transition. For example, if the signage actually creates a gap between the times, then that gap allows the to do the zipper work or whatever else is needed to reverse them, and we really don't need to have any buffer. If the end of "northbound" butts up to the start time listed for "southbound," for example, then they've set it up where the switch takes away from the posted times, and we may need more fudge.

George, the only reversible lanes I'm aware of for NJ are the tunnels to NY. In New York, there are some reversible lanes on highways.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by russblau
CBenson wrote:Thus if you set up of HOV lanes properly with time/vehicle restrictions, then all vehicles will be prohibited from the HOV lanes during the times that the HOV restrictions are in place. This is a distinct advantage over using parking lot roads for HOV restrictions that are not in place all the time. As with the restrictions waze will route over the HOV lanes when the restrictions are not applicable. With parking lot roads, the HOV lanes will never be routed on.
One thing I have found as a user of the I-395/95 HOV lanes in Virginia is that, if you set the "private vehicle" restriction on the HOV lanes, and a driver enters the HOV lanes during the hours that the restriction is in effect, Waze will always instruct the driver to leave the HOV lanes at the next exit. (This is different from what happens if you drive onto a parking lot road.) To avoid this, don't restrict the HOV lanes themselves, but instead restrict all the entrances to and exits from the HOV lanes. Then, if a Waze user drives on the HOV lanes, Waze should direct them to the exit that is actually fastest for them to reach their destination. (This will also provide more accurate instructions in the edge cases, as where a Waze user reaches the entrance to the HOV lanes one minute before the restriction takes effect.)

Note that if this method is used, it is crucial that all exits be restricted correctly; if one is missed, Waze will route everyone on the HOV facility to that unrestricted exit segment.

We might want to add this to the Wiki page.
russblau
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 1801
Answers: 1
Has thanked: 359 times
Been thanked: 681 times
Send a message