[Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:50 pm

Yes, those are issues. And they cause many URs as noted here for the HOT lanes that are mapped on the Washington Beltway (except for the PLR penalty not being high enough as you have to use the avoid toll penalty to avoid them). But for those that want to pay to avoid the traffic, why wouldn't we map them?
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10259
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1051 times
Been thanked: 2326 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby qwaletee » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:42 pm

HOV and HOT are a little different, but nevertheless, a lot of the discussion overlaps.

Where there is clear lane separation, enough for Waze to snap to the correct road and measure independent speed data, there is no reason not to do so. The characteristics avoid many of the issues, and it may even make sense to map them as regular Freeway type.

Where they are mapped as PLR, and they are close to the regular lanes, there's no real advantage to having them mapped UNLESS there is a different exit configuration. Here's why:

Once set up as PLR, Waze will not route via the HOT/HOV regardless of driver preference. It is only when the driver chooses to take his/her own initiative of taking HOV/HOT that Waze would use a mapped HOV/HOT, after POSSIBLY snapping to it and recalculating the drive. If that occurs, but exits are still identical (same exits, same naming, same maneuver to exit), then we have no advantage to mapping it even once Waze does snap to them, because the driving instructions will be identical no matter whether you chose HOV/HOT or not.

If exits map differently for HOV/HOT, then having mapped the special lanes is an advantage in that Waze knows that the driver can't take the "skipped" exits. But that's assuming Waze snaps the driver to the HOV/HOT. If they are crowded together, this probably won't happen, so the theoretical advantage disappears (and the potential for problems does occur, if a regular lane driver is ever incorrectly snapped to HOV/HOT).

So here would be my guidance:

Crowded, with no difference in configuration: Never map, no advantages, all disadvantages
Spread out, with different configurations: Always map, and use regular Freeway type, suffix (HOV) or (HOT) . No disadvantages, and would cause problems without

Spread out with same configuration: Safe to map same as above, has advantage of not confusing Waze over possible missing roads

Crowded with different configuration: Judgement call, but preference would be to not map, as it is only an advantage for those who ignore Waze and take it despite lacking the instructions... whereas drivers who follow Waze may sometimes get bad routes because of bad snapping. If it is mapped, set each entrance segment as a PLR (tolled if HOT) with same suffixing as above.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 1093 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:15 am

But HOT lanes should not be mapped as PLR. You want those who are willing to pay the toll to be able to route over them. There is no reason not have them set to tolled freeway type now so that they can be used for routing.

I don't see any reason to map HOV lanes as PLR at this point. Where appropriate to map them, just map them with the appropriate HOV restriction. However, no-one will be routed over a segment with a HOV restriction. So there is really no reason to spend much effort at this point to change HOV lanes previously mapped as PLRs to freeway (or highway) type with HOV restrictions.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10259
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1051 times
Been thanked: 2326 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby kentsmith9 » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:45 am

I agree with qwaletee's overall proposal with one exception on mapping them or not. At some point in the past I was told that the snap to tracking is for visual reference, but the routing server is tracking the actual location of the vehicle relative to speed information. Therefore when a driver is in the HOT/HOV lane, even if Waze shows them in the std. freeway lane, the fast moving driver is not altering the freeway speed data. Have we confirmed or disproved that information?

CBenson wrote:But HOT lanes should not be mapped as PLR. You want those who are willing to pay the toll to be able to route over them. There is no reason not have them set to tolled freeway type now so that they can be used for routing.

I don't see any reason to map HOV lanes as PLR at this point. Where appropriate to map them, just map them with the appropriate HOV restriction. However, no-one will be routed over a segment with a HOV restriction. So there is really no reason to spend much effort at this point to change HOV lanes previously mapped as PLRs to freeway (or highway) type with HOV restrictions.

Without additional client features I think this is still a problem to open it up as described. In the SF Bay Area we have 7 toll bridges which provide virtually the only access to those locations on the other side of the water, so everyone pays the toll. In the stretches of freeways leading to the bridges we have HOT lanes that drivers are not willing to pay due to the limited benefit. So a user who lives in the bay area will leave the Toll route option on all the time to enable bridge crossing, but then would be continuously routed in HOT lanes.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1286 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:33 am

kentsmith9 wrote:In the SF Bay Area we have 7 toll bridges which provide virtually the only access to those locations on the other side of the water, so everyone pays the toll. In the stretches of freeways leading to the bridges we have HOT lanes that drivers are not willing to pay due to the limited benefit. So a user who lives in the bay area will leave the Toll route option on all the time to enable bridge crossing, but then would be continuously routed in HOT lanes.

I agree that is a problem and you may have do something different in the SF Bay Area. But that is a permanent issue. We can't account for both drivers that want to use some toll roads and drivers that want to use all the toll roads. This will remain an issue even after the HOV indication is enabled in the client.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10259
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1051 times
Been thanked: 2326 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby Fredo-p » Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:21 am

I know a read a discussion a while ago about HOV lanes and one possible issue that made sense. That issue was that Waze may have a hard time figuring out if a driver is on a highway, HOV lane, or has skipped an off ramp due to GPS accuracy.

Is the GPS accurate enough to be able to determine if a driver has switched from the HOV/HOT lanes to the freeway/highway? I see this as a problem if a driver is on the HOV, skips an exit cause its not one they agree with, and have to wait for waze to reroute after it figures out they are on the highway. I've seen this happen when I skip an off ramp. Waze things I'm still on the off ramp until I'm passed it. If a driver does this, waze would most likely put them on the highway and not the HOV when a new route is given.

Sent from my Droid4 using Tapatalk.
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 631 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby kentsmith9 » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:33 pm

CBenson wrote:I agree that is a problem and you may have do something different in the SF Bay Area. But that is a permanent issue. We can't account for both drivers that want to use some toll roads and drivers that want to use all the toll roads. This will remain an issue even after the HOV indication is enabled in the client.

Maybe the SF area is the only one with this condition as you said, so may not be worth investing in a fix for it, but my idea was likely to be universal to any situation. The client would have two toll options. 1) Avoid all tolls (as it works today), and 2) Avoid tolls unless it reduces travel time by 50% (or some number) (with a minimum of 15 min required savings or something).

For SF that would automatically keep bridges and avoid HOT. For other areas with Toll roads people normally avoid, it would add them into the options if there was an accident on the free road and the toll road was a major savings.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1286 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:50 pm

I'm all for that. I agree that in many jurisdictions there are avoidable toll roads and unavoidable toll roads.

However even if I have avoid toll routes selected, waze will route through toll segments in some instances. For long routes over 100 miles or so I get an error if the only non-toll route is too circuitous on low road types. But for shorter commuting type trip lengths, waze simply gives me a toll route even if I have avoid tolls selected and there is not a reasonable alternative. Even if waze can find a non-toll route, it will still present a faster tolled route as an alternative. There can be issues if there are multiple toll choices and the map is not edited to mark only the segment with the toll both as toll. It seems in this instance, where you have avoid toll roads selected, but there are only toll choices, waze picks the one with the fewest toll segment. This seems to me to indicate that with avoid toll routes currently selected for a typically communing length route, waze would at least give you an option of a route that routes over the unavoidable toll bridges but would still avoids the avoidable toll roads.

So given we don't have two toll options in the client like you propose, the question becomes how should we map HOT lanes. Should we map them as toll roads so that those that want to avoid the traffic by using them can see them as options and see how much time they may save by using them. Or should we map HOT lanes only as HOV lanes so those that don't want to pay for them will not be routed over them even when they don't have avoid toll roads enabled. At this point I think we should map to make the routing work for users that can either say yes or no to the the question - do you want to route over toll roads? Then waze can add features to cater to those that need more options.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10259
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1051 times
Been thanked: 2326 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby kentsmith9 » Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:19 am

CBenson wrote:However even if I have avoid toll routes selected, waze will route through toll segments in some instances. For long routes over 100 miles or so I get an error if the only non-toll route is too circuitous on low road types. But for shorter commuting type trip lengths, waze simply gives me a toll route even if I have avoid tolls selected and there is not a reasonable alternative.

I seem to have a different experience just now in a test. Near the entrance of the San Mateo bridge I routed across to the coastline. With avoid toll, the three routes were by land only and took 60 minutes plus. When I allowed toll routes, two of the three routes were across the bridge and the direct route was 35 minutes. The other two had other roads to get to the coast that ended up taking as long as 60 minutes.

So if I had avoid tolls during my commute to work, it would not give me a bridge if it saved 25 minutes of my 60 minute route. That is a fail in my book.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1286 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:19 am

Ahh, well you would have more experience with this issue. The problem would seem to be one of tuning the cutoffs, which could be done more easily with the second toll option that you propose. For my simple test I routed from Orinda to San Francisco so the land routes were a bit longer.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10259
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1051 times
Been thanked: 2326 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users