CBenson wrote:

PesachZ wrote:I have straight road examples as well if you need.

A straight example with house numbers would be appreciated.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... s=81523089 Here you go

sketch wrote:Whatever they're called, there is a purpose for two separate and different types of "walkable" road types on Waze, one for routing to destinations accessible only on foot, and the other ignored by the routing server but displayed for landmark and safety purposes, similar to railroads.

I would assume that a "walking trail" is a longer trail for walking, jogging, whatever, and that a "pedestrian boardwalk" was a pedestrians-only right of way with, say, businesses on it, but it appears the routing server makes the opposite assumption.

These have been disconnected from the road network as long as I can remember, but at this point I'm confident that connecting them would have no ill effect. We don't want someone trying to get to a business on Saint Peter brought to Wilkinson instead, for example. It'd also be useful to be brought wherever's actually quickest rather than whatever street happens to be closest to the pin for the particular business or address. Apparently that's what "walking trail" can do (although it's more what I would expect "pedestrian boardwalk" would do based on the name).

It would also be nice to map trails where people hike, cycle, and so forth with a road type that is not seen or used by the routing server, similar to railroads, but that would display on the map for landmarking and safety (i.e., oh, there's the trail, better be careful) purposes. Apparently this is what "pedestrian boardwalk" does, although really it's a trail.

perhaps we can petition Waze to swap the names? Or as suggested earlier in the thread, to ask Waze to confirm that these are in fact the intended handling for these types, or just an unnoticed side effect of something which could change with a future update? If is not intended we need to be careful about connecting them to the roads, because they may start routing in the future.

CBenson wrote:Sure, but if they are mapped, they should not be connected to the road network. Are there any editors that believe that walking trails should be connected to the road network? If so, we need to address why.

I'd disconnect the trail from the road network and tell the reporter that I'd edited the map to prevent routing on the trail.

There are rare cases where it is beneficial to have a walking trail connected to the road network for purposes of providing efficient destination routing. I believe this may have been mentioned very early in this thread.

Two examples I've seen:

A train station with parking lot access from two roads, but the lots are not connected by a drivable road. If we place the stop point for the station in any lot users approaching from the other road are needlessly rooted around the station. Connecting the two lots with a segment of walking trail, then placing the stop point on that trail segment allows routing to the best choice lot.

A single rest area on a divided highway with separate non-connected lots for either direction would have to be mapped as separate places even though in reality it's only one place. Otherwise routes would force a user off the highway and back around to opposite side. A similar solution as above can be implemented using one place with two trail segments connecting both lots in a micro loop. This can be done in a way using turn restrictions to never allow routing from one lot to the other, but to still allow continuous routing from highway, to rests to rest area place stop point, as a stop on the Waze route, and then continue back out of the same lot onto the highway, to your original destination. A few editors did this successfully, in a manner that avoided any confusing instructions at the micro loop, by overlapping the very beginning of the loop segments with the PLR they were connecting to. Perhaps sketch can post a PL to the rest area example.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

CBenson wrote:I have two questions about the use in the rest area. First, why the two walking trails? Second, why does the live map not route to the closest exit for the rest area (there are some turn restrictions and TBR in the rest area that I don't understand).

301RA.png

Link

I'll start with the easy one, your 2nd question: I seems to be because of an errant turn restriction. The turn to cars lane at the split (between these two segments) was restricted, making impossible to get a route to the stop point from the NB lanes. I just fixed it so we can test again tomorrow.

Now why two trails here, I alluded to this briefly above

PesachZ wrote:A similar solution as above can be implemented using one place with two trail segments connecting both lots in a micro loop. This can be done in a way using turn restrictions to never allow routing from one lot to the other, but to still allow continuous routing from highway, to rests to rest area place stop point, as a stop on the Waze route, and then continue back out of the same lot onto the highway, to your original destination.

The intention was to allow a driver who is travelling on the highway with a destination already in Waze to then navigate to the Rest Area by adding a stop to his route. If we used one trail segment only we would have one of two problems:

• Either we restrict all outbound connectivity of the trail segment, but then if added as a stop, Waze would not be able to find a way to continue the route from that point forward, and not being able to display a correct ETA to his final destination. Forcing him to recalculate once he passed the rest area.
• If we allowed outbound connectivity (and U-turns), we run the risk of Waze trying to route someone to the opposite side of the building over the trail segment, and out to the opposite direction of the highway from where they came. This is bad routing, and actually not possible as the roads don't connect.

Using the micro loop, whichever side you approach from, you can access the segment with the stop point, and then are forced to continue your route in the same direction (as Waze won't offer a u-turn mid segment at a destination stop), to the second segment of the loop. The turn arrows are restricted in such a way that the only allowed option is back to the same PLR you cam from, whichever side you approach from. The geometry was carefully set to prevent any of these turns in the loop from producing navigation instructions, so it doesn't sound confusing to a driver.
I'll post some screenshots in a few minutes.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12 ... 3c43d8.jpg
Ability to add the rest area as a stop and still continue navigation. Waze chooses best approach based on direction of travel and only allows exit to same direction.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12 ... 5f34d7.jpg
All turns in micro loop are not displayed or announced.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12 ... 5a05ad.jpg
Trying to use rest area as a shortcut to opposite direction of freeway, Waze still routes you out the way you can't in, then take the next exit to turn around.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

CBenson wrote:Given this:

PesachZ wrote:The turn arrows are restricted in such a way that the only allowed option is back to the same PLR you cam from, whichever side you approach from. The geometry was carefully set to prevent any of these turns in the loop from producing navigation instructions, so it doesn't sound confusing to a driver.

Is the walking trail just used for its display difference? Or does the road type effect the routing in some way?

The stop point is set on the trail segment, but its not actually a drivable segment, it's a walking path for after you park. We want it to be routeable to allow navigation to it, but not to appear driveable, since it is not. theoretically the same routing could be achieved with a PLR, but I guess the reason we used trail instead of PLR is for display reasons.

Poncewattle wrote:

PesachZ wrote:The turn arrows are restricted in such a way that the only allowed option is back to the same PLR you cam from, whichever side you approach from.

I had to deconstruct it in not-logged-in practice mode to see how you did that. Didn't quite see it at first, but one side goes clockwise around the loop and the other goes counter-clockwise around the loop so they can both pass over the same north and south junctions but have different turn restrictions on each end since they hit them from a different direction of travel.

Neat!

and due to the geometry being set to overlap segments, the turn arrows all point the same way making it hard to see which segment they point to without messing with the geometry first. To set it up I first set all the turn restrictions, then adjusted the geometry.

What's wrong with a neutral position that simply doesn't mention? Is it causing clutter, and if so, can we talk about how that is negatively impacting Waze? I mean, technically, walking trails and/or boardwalks are not wrong; these are ways to get places - just not by car.

My concern is, rather, that instead of this, there are far better value-add things the map needs help with, and I'd like to see editors steered in those directions instead.

When I was a new editor, I mapped my small town's walkway because it's so important to the town. I even mapped it correctly (disconnected from road network)

http://hawksbillgreenway.org/

But as I learned more about how Waze works and its focus, I voluntarily went back and deleted it.

So I can understand the appeal of noobs wanting to map this stuff out. "It's a map -- it's not on there. I can be helpful and draw it." I can also see that just deleting it would discourage them. Shame the developers can't just take walking trail out of the map altogether --or make them non-routable like railroads and ped boardwalks are.

Speaking of this topic.... Yikes.... Truck driver followed his GPS onto a pedestrian walkway.... no mention if it was Waze...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/ ... 32441.html

...the man drove his truck, with its 53-foot trailer, onto the walkway about 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, damaging several trees, two pedestrian bridges and the adjacent concrete railings. The truck came to a stop on the peninsula behind the Lake Park lighthouse.

The driver told authorities that he had been following directions from his GPS.