Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by CBenson
But from a wiki writing perspective, Karen did not use the word "impossible." I don't see an advantage to equating a hard turn restriction to a disconnected segment in the wiki.
Currently the proposal is to state that routing through a hard restricted turn is prohibited or prevented.
"Hard restrictions prevent routing through the turn."
The routing effect of hard restricted turns is "prohibited."
"Waze should not route through this [hard restricted] turn."
"Restricting a turn with a hard turn restriction prevents routes though that turn."

Is there any advantage to stating that routing through a hard turn restriction is impossible or is equivalent to disconnecting the segment? Is such a statement really true? As has been noted:
top_gun_de wrote:the 100%-confirmation-statement uses the standard escape-word "should"
So the question remains:
top_gun_de wrote:does that mean there might still be conditions where the accuracy of the statement is restricted?
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
So I think I agree with what everyone is saying here. However, I'm not concluding that any changes are needed to the proposed wiki language. Do any of you think that the proposed language needs to be revised to be more clear?
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
Yes, we keep talking about an overhaul for that page, but I guess its really time to do something about it.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by deeploz
WonderLerm wrote: "Restricted turns should be 100% restricted. Under no circumstance should we route through them. Private roads, referenced in the discussions, are a completely different thing. There we do have a penalty."
CBenson wrote:But the point of this change is that the hard turn restriction isn't really a penalty anymore.
So if it is not a penalty matter, what is is exactly ?

Can we say that the routing engine consider a hard turn restriction as the same "level of impossible routing" than if the destination segment was disconnected (i.e. no segment connectivity) ?

Because we know, for sure, that Waze has never proposed a route through the void between two disconnected segment. But (even if never experienced it personally) some have reported that, in certain circumstances, a route was proposed through a hard turn restriction. Or is it only an editor's legend ?
deeploz
Emeritus Local Champ
Emeritus Local Champ
Posts: 1884
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 233 times
Send a message

Post by edsonajj
The improvements certainly seem better than the previous revision.
I also don't see anything new that might be against any community's experience.
edsonajj
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2625
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 632 times
Send a message
Edson Jiménez

Post by kentsmith9
I like the proposed changes on the page, but I don't understand why 100% of the penalty system paragraph was removed. I would think it better to reword it to still reflect how the penalty system applies to soft turns, unless I missed that they somehow work differently as well.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 5765
Has thanked: 816 times
Been thanked: 1156 times
Send a message

Post by kentsmith9
CBenson wrote:I've adjusted the proposed page based on the comments here. https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/index.php?ti ... did=128914
Thanks for returning the penalty explanation.

Did I miss the proposal to remove the the "More information" column? Was it felt to be redundant to something else? I still think it adds value and would propose it stay.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 5765
Has thanked: 816 times
Been thanked: 1156 times
Send a message

Post by kentsmith9
I believe we know that at a minimum it will not "generally" route through a hard restricted turn. The question is if the "generally" is 100% certain or less than that. I think at a minimum it is still accurate to assume you will not normally get that turn and there could be some combination that might try to do it, but until we find out should we assume "never" or "non-zero probability" you will get the turn?
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 5765
Has thanked: 816 times
Been thanked: 1156 times
Send a message