Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!

Post Reply

[Update] Best map editing practice: split road guidance

Post by AlanOfTheBerg
I noticed that the When to Split a Two-Way Road (and when not to) section seems to be missing something which I know we have guided editors on in the past. Specifically, a split road is advisable when a house address or business (with no off-street parking) is located directly on the street but is not accessible from the opposite direction of travel due to median or other obstruction.

Is this in there but I am just missing it? If this guidance is too broad, how should it read?
AlanOfTheBerg
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 23627
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 3478 times

POSTER_ID:701618

1

Send a message
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Ex-Global Champ Editor | iPhone13Pro - VZ

Post by AlanOfTheBerg
Thanks for all the input. Changes have been posted.
AlanOfTheBerg
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 23627
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 3478 times
Send a message
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Ex-Global Champ Editor | iPhone13Pro - VZ

Post by bluemigui
Hi Guys,

Just a clarification from this specific criteria of when to split:

"multiple houses or businesses with no off-street parking are located directly on the street but are not accessible from the opposite direction of travel due to lengthy median, obstruction, or traffic control signage"

How "lengthy" would a median be to qualify for splitting?
I believe we should put a number on that as the term "lengthy" seems to be quite subjective.
DwarfLord wrote: Something to ensure that roads don't get split just for one address or for a median that lasts only 50 feet
I agree with DwarfLord that you don't just split due to a median that short.

So I suggest maybe splitting should/can be done when a median is generally at least already a quarter mile long in a highly commercial and high traffic area? This way, the 0.2 mile prompt will still be given to alert the driver of the upcoming turn.

Is a quarter mile long enough?
Because not splitting in this case would practically result to being off route by at least half a mile, starting at the wrong side of the road directly across the actual destination then travelling back the same length.

Its really quite a hassle finding yourself on the wrong side of the road and needing to drive along moderate to heavy traffic just to go back to the correct side of the road, when it could have been avoided if the the road was drawn as split in the first place.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!
bluemigui
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Send a message

Post by bluemigui
Thanks for the response guys,

The longest median I've seen so far in a high commercial and high traffic area is a quarter mile long, but it's already drawn as divided so routing to the right side of the road is not a problem. I think it was divided more because of being qualified at the other criteria.

But given the specific situation of a "lengthy" median that is still drawn as a two-way road, how long do you think it would be to warrant a split?

Thanks again =)
bluemigui
Posts: 380
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Specifically, a split road is advisable when a house address or business (with no off-street parking) is located directly on the street but is not accessible from the opposite direction of travel due to median or other obstruction.
Agreed, although to avoid lozengy highways I wonder if this should read "multiple house addresses or businesses with no off-street parking"; or perhaps "due to a lengthy median or other obstruction". Hmm, can't figure out how to say this best, but you know what I mean. Something to ensure that roads don't get split just for one address or for a median that lasts only 50 feet; either that, or something that says a road should not go back and forth too often between split and unsplit.

A couple of additional suggestions:

1. Another criterion for splitting: extensive presence of adjacent or frontage roads requires splitting the main road so that Waze is less likely to snap drivers in the outermost lanes to the adjacent roads by mistake.

2. More generally, I'd love to see the guidance state more clearly that UNsplit is the default. In other words, splitting a road carries the burden of proof. For old-timers this is so obvious we don't consciously think about it -- I mean, when we put in a random new bit of road, we generally don't start by assuming it should be split and then contemplating reasons why it shouldn't be. But it's not as obvious to new editors. And, making the judgement gets harder as you get to borderline cases if it's not clear which approach has the burden of proof. This shouldn't be a controversial adjustment as long as the list of things requiring splitting is sufficient.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by Fredo-p
Alan,

That specific "when to split" scenario isn't in the wiki. Otto brought it up in the Wiki Hangouts.

It's also been asked here.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 240 times
Been thanked: 522 times
Send a message

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
sketch wrote:Alan, this sentence should (must) be added.

More importantly, this sentence needs to be removed outright: "Generally only freeways or major highways are split into two one-way roads."

I also propose a clarifying change to the language:
From "A road should be split when:"
To "A road should be split when any of the following conditions are met:"
Fredo-p wrote:Alan,

That specific "when to split" scenario isn't in the wiki. Otto brought it up in the Wiki Hangouts.

It's also been asked here.
Sure it is. How to split is not in the Wiki, I believe.
Ah, you are correct.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 240 times
Been thanked: 522 times
Send a message

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
Maybe add something like "Just because it's like that on other map editors doesn't mean it will work here" ;)
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 240 times
Been thanked: 522 times
Send a message

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
sketch wrote: Honestly, and I've said it before, I don't understand why we, who are giving such special attention to all these roads in the first place, should map anything in a way that doesn't reflect reality.
Cause that would follow reality/make sense and you know we aren't about that. ;)
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 240 times
Been thanked: 522 times
Send a message

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Mr_Joshua_
G'Day,
I would like to add to the point for Not dividing a road:
"It is possible and legal to make a left turn/u-turn everywhere along the road"
should read:
"It is possible and legal to make a left turn/u-turn everywhere along the road (or Right Turn/U-Turn, for those countries that drive on the correct side of the road)."
Or something to that effect, it is a bit misleading.
Cheers,
Mr Joshua.
Mr_Joshua_
Map Editor - level 2
Map Editor - level 2
Posts: 25
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Send a message