[Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:29 pm

CBenson wrote:What do the "name-discontinuity" and "uninterruped name" concepts add to understanding the BDP? Would this be correct?
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:CBenson ... Mechanisms

With the old understanding it was necessary to explain the one segment exception not triggering discontinuity. At first glance reading your example draft it seems to apply and make sense, but I did not study it carefully. It is very likely that with this new understanding your draft is more simple and still accurate. I welcome anyone who would try to find whether or not there are discrepancies and thank you for your effort.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4507
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1997 times
Been thanked: 2352 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby DwarfLord » Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:49 pm

CBenson wrote:Would this be correct?
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:CBenson ... Mechanisms

If I am understanding the clarification, the following paragraph from the above link may make an incorrect implication:

CBenson's draft wiki article wrote:If the ramp does not also carry a simple alternate name of "I-1234", then there is a discontinuity of the highway name between the concurrency and the continuation highway. If there are two ramp segments like this, it will trigger Big Detour Prevention unexpectedly, and Waze will create an unneeded penalty for continuing on I-1234.

Based on the clarification, I think the discontinuity of the highway name for even as much as a single segment will trigger the unexpected penalty. The above paragraph leaves the strong impression that there need to be two segments with the name discontinuity to trigger the unwanted penalty.

This may be a big deal, actually, as we are not always able to set ramp alternate names to reflect concurrent highway names without unwanted side-effects on BC and thus navigation instructions.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1066 times
Been thanked: 1432 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:56 pm

DwarfLord wrote:
CBenson wrote:Would this be correct?
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:CBenson ... Mechanisms

If I am understanding the clarification, the following paragraph from the above link may make an incorrect implication:

CBenson's draft wiki article wrote:If the ramp does not also carry a simple alternate name of "I-1234", then there is a discontinuity of the highway name between the concurrency and the continuation highway. If there are two ramp segments like this, it will trigger Big Detour Prevention unexpectedly, and Waze will create an unneeded penalty for continuing on I-1234.

Based on the clarification, I think the discontinuity of the highway name for even as much as a single segment will trigger the unexpected penalty. The above paragraph leaves the strong impression that there need to be two segments with the name discontinuity to trigger the unwanted penalty.

This may be a big deal, actually, as we are not always able to set ramp alternate names to reflect concurrent highway names without unwanted side-effects on BC and thus navigation instructions.

That example is copied from the original page.
I think the reason that example mentions "another ramp like this", is because a single segment alone cannot trigger the BDP penalty. One of the criteria is the possible detour must be longer than one segment.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4507
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1997 times
Been thanked: 2352 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby DwarfLord » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:32 pm

Still, it may be more helpful to reword to something like "If there are two or more ramp segments for the concurrent highway, but even one of the segments does not carry the simple highway name as either primary or alternate, Waze will impose an unexpected detour penalty for continuing on I-1234".

Provided I'm understanding the mechanism myself, that is.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1066 times
Been thanked: 1432 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:35 pm

DwarfLord wrote:Still, it may be more helpful to reword to something like "If there are two or more ramp segments for the concurrent highway, but even one of the segments does not carry the simple highway name as either primary or alternate, Waze will impose an unexpected detour penalty for continuing on I-1234".

Provided I'm understanding the mechanism myself, that is.

The understanding is correct. Now try to make it fit nicely in the paragraph, so the overall paragraph reads well.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4507
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1997 times
Been thanked: 2352 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby CBenson » Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:16 pm

Regarding the Criteria section, the significant differences that I see between my draft and your proposals are:

1) I've eliminated the "to be considered as a possible detour" paragraph. Even if the routing algorithm operates with a two step process, I'm not sure it matters to us if as long as "detours" are a subset of "possible detours." My reasoning assumes they are. That is there are no "detours" that meet the criteria for "detours" but are not penalized because they weren't evaluated because they failed to qualify as a "possible detour."

2) The current wiki defines "name-discontinuity" as a series of segments that . . . . The possible detour statement refers to "a series of segment that contain a name-discontinuity." I've read this to mean that the possible detour can be comprised entirely of segments without the relevant street name or can include some segments that have the relevant street name as long as one is missing the relevant street name. This fits with my understanding of the BDP, so I'm pretty sure this is correct.

3) There has been some confusion regarding the road type limitation. The wiki states: "The possible detour is not composed of the same 'Road Type Group' as the continuation after the possible detour." The first question is does "not composed" mean does not include any segments of the same 'Road Type Group' or does it mean does not include all segments of the same 'Road Type Group.' My experience tells me this should mean "does not include all segments." In other words the detour must include at least one segment that is not in the same 'Road Type Group.' The second question is that the 'Road Type Group' limitation is also mentioned in the possible detour paragraph and seems to modify the series of that contains the "name-discontinuity" series. If this is intended to mean that a segment with the 'Road Type Group' discontinuity must also have the "name-discontinuity," then I do not believe I've included such a requirement in my draft. (It is usually the case, for example a ramp segment with the name discontinuity, but I don't know if its required or not).

4) The final difference that I see is that I have changed criteria 5 regarding the one segment rule to refer to the possible detour rather than the name continuity. I'm fairly certain that this is the basic change that needs to me made even if my other suggestions are not adopted.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:46 pm

CBenson wrote:Regarding the Criteria section, the significant differences that I see between my draft and your proposals are:

1) I've eliminated the "to be considered as a possible detour" paragraph. Even if the routing algorithm operates with a two step process, I'm not sure it matters to us if as long as "detours" are a subset of "possible detours." My reasoning assumes they are. That is there are no "detours" that meet the criteria for "detours" but are not penalized because they weren't evaluated because they failed to qualify as a "possible detour."

2) The current wiki defines "name-discontinuity" as a series of segments that . . . . The possible detour statement refers to "a series of segment that contain a name-discontinuity." I've read this to mean that the possible detour can be comprised entirely of segments without the relevant street name or can include some segments that have the relevant street name as long as one is missing the relevant street name. This fits with my understanding of the BDP, so I'm pretty sure this is correct.

3) There has been some confusion regarding the road type limitation. The wiki states: "The possible detour is not composed of the same 'Road Type Group' as the continuation after the possible detour." The first question is does "not composed" mean does not include any segments of the same 'Road Type Group' or does it mean does not include all segments of the same 'Road Type Group.' My experience tells me this should mean "does not include all segments." In other words the detour must include at least one segment that is not in the same 'Road Type Group.' The second question is that the 'Road Type Group' limitation is also mentioned in the possible detour paragraph and seems to modify the series of that contains the "name-discontinuity" series. If this is intended to mean that a segment with the 'Road Type Group' discontinuity must also have the "name-discontinuity," then I do not believe I've included such a requirement in my draft. (It is usually the case, for example a ramp segment with the name discontinuity, but I don't know if its required or not).

4) The final difference that I see is that I have changed criteria 5 regarding the one segment rule to refer to the possible detour rather than the name continuity. I'm fairly certain that this is the basic change that needs to me made even if my other suggestions are not adopted.

For 3) to be penalized as a detour, the path must not be in the same road type group, and must not carry a continuous name.
In other words if the possible detour has a matching name, or a matching Road type, it will not be penalized. Ideally this should be applied to every segment of the possible detour, so that if even one segment of the possible detour does not match the road type and the name there is the potential for the penalty to be applied. However in practice today the process is not always applied exactly precisely due to server processing limitations. Therefore to be safe and future proof if you want to ensure a specific behaviour, then you should ensure compliance from all the segments of the possible detour.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4507
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1997 times
Been thanked: 2352 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby edsonajj » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:13 pm

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly it seems to imply that if on a route that takes you out of a road and soon after it takes you back, name discontinuity on a single segment would cause detour prevention to kick in.

That would contradict what I see on this route since it takes you out of a road and back again with a name discontinuity in the middle.

Could someone tell me if I misunderstood the text of the proposal?
Edson Jiménez
edsonajj
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: México
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:19 pm

edsonajj wrote:If I'm understanding the proposal correctly it seems to imply that if on a route that takes you out of a road and soon after it takes you back, name discontinuity on a single segment would cause detour prevention to kick in.

That would contradict what I see on this route since it takes you out of a road and back again with a name discontinuity in the middle.

Could someone tell me if I misunderstood the text of the proposal?

You are understanding correct in theory however in practice it is not 100% as I explained above.

PesachZ wrote: However in practice today the process is not always applied exactly precisely due to server processing limitations. Therefore to be safe and future proof if you want to ensure a specific behaviour, then you should ensure compliance from all the segments of the possible detour.



Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4507
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1997 times
Been thanked: 2352 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby CBenson » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:32 pm

I don't know. I don't think its good practice to name cross streets between a divided highway with the name of the highway in order ensure compliance with a shifting BDP implementation.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users