Page 3 of 7

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:17 pm
by DwarfLord
I still don't buy it.

This thread is about the wiki. It is not about talking to reporters.

The purpose of the recommendation is to improve the wiki so it is less confusing to editors. Specifically, to new and advancing editors.

I have encountered editors who do not understand that Waze intentionally routes detours over detour-prevented routes. They do not understand that, when Waze does this, it is considered a success. They do not understand that when Waze allows prevented detours, the prevention system is working as expected. This is because they are confused, and I think it is because the word "prevention" confuses them. I do not want them to be confused. I would like to improve that by improving our guidance for editors.

No argument has yet been made that the current terminology is less confusing than the proposed terminology. The argument that is being made is that the current terminology means what we want it to mean provided we already know what it means. That is fine for experienced editors. It is not fine for new editors.

You are welcome to use any language you like in talking to reporters. This thread is about informing and educating editors.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:55 pm
by DwarfLord
PesachZ wrote:Should be updated to say:
To be considered as a possible detour there must be a Freeway / Highway segment of the same 'Road Type Group', which share any name, both before and after a series of segments (more than one) which contain a name-discontinuity, and are in a different 'Road Type Group'.

I'm not quite following the language...the second change (above) appears to contradict the first?

Specifically, the phrase "more than one [segment] which contain a name-discontinuity" in the second change appears to contradict the previous change indicating that even one segment's worth of name discontinuity qualifies as an "interrupted name".

Perhaps I missed something in the context of the remainder of the article...I didn't go back to review it.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:49 pm
by DwarfLord
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.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:32 pm
by DwarfLord
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.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:35 am
by DwarfLord
sketch wrote:No prevention method is 100% effective. Condoms break, crimes still happen, and automobile engines still die no matter how diligent you are about changing the oil.

Every example you just listed is an unintentional failure of the prevention methodology. In Waze's detour "prevention", detours that occur when a penalty is overcome are intentional, not failures at all. To call them failures would be flat-out wrong. This is exactly why the word "prevention" is confusing; your examples prove my point.

Arguing that the English verb "to prevent" means "deliberately and intentionally to allow under some circumstances" is like arguing that because black cannot exist without its opposite white, therefore black essentially is white. As Douglas Adams pointed out, this may be philosophically correct but it will get you killed at the next zebra crossing.

This being said, I have come to understand that some changes in Waze are simply not going to happen. This appears to be one of them. C'est la vie; I gave this one up years ago.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:13 pm
by edsonajj
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?

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:22 pm
by edsonajj
PesachZ wrote:
CBenson wrote: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.

We wouldn't have to since cross streets between the divided highway are only one segment long and therefore wouldn't meet penalty criteria as a possible detour regardless of name or type.

Edit: under your criteria section you could clarify this to make it stand out more.
A "possible detour" is a series of segments (more than one) in the middle of a route which meet the minimum criteria to trigger an evaluation.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk


But what if it is, like on my example, a crossing with an overpass? According to the article I should put name A on the connecting ramps and in one segment of road B.
Mind you, that would very probably suppress the instruction to exit right on the ramp.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:13 am
by edsonajj
The current proposal seems difficult to understand, at least I wasn't sure that I had understood correctly at first as can be seen several posts earlier.

I dare to consider myself experienced in Waze and had difficulty in understanding it. Without wanting to just criticise the work that has been done, it most probably won't be understood by new editors.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:46 pm
by edsonajj
sketch wrote:But, regardless, at the very least, cardinals should be used on every freeway and expressway
Maybe in the US, but not in Mexico.

Over here, when a cardinal is used on a road name it is because the cardinal is part of the official name.
If we add cardinals to roads that don't have it in the name the main result would be more difficulty in searches.
Beside that, the practice for cardinals in official names is different than for most of the world. When a cardinal is added to the name it usually reflects what point it is closer to from the middle on the north.That means than on a north-south road, the "top half" is named north and the "bottom half" is named south.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:26 pm
by johnsninja58
I'm in favor of penalty as that is in line with how things work behind the scenes and get editors using the right terms and thinking about WHY waze generated that route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk