Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:30 pm

sketch wrote:cardinals should be used on every freeway and expressway, and those are going to be responsible for 99.9% of every multi-segment U turn.

I'd just state for the record that I believe that there are plenty of divided roads that are not limited access freeways and expressways and that these roads account for more than 0.1% of multi-segment U turns (particularly as there are destinations on such roads that require U-turns to get to and from).

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:51 pm

CBenson wrote:
sketch wrote:cardinals should be used on every freeway and expressway, and those are going to be responsible for 99.9% of every multi-segment U turn.

I'd just state for the record that I believe that there are plenty of divided roads that are not limited access freeways and expressways and that these roads account for more than 0.1% of multi-segment U turns (particularly as there are destinations on such roads that require U-turns to get to and from).

Wouldn't let U-turn on those divided roads be a single segment median though and therefore not subject to the BDP penalty?

Sent from Android using Tapatalk

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:18 pm

PesachZ wrote:
CBenson wrote:I'd just state for the record that I believe that there are plenty of divided roads that are not limited access freeways and expressways and that these roads account for more than 0.1% of multi-segment U turns (particularly as there are destinations on such roads that require U-turns to get to and from).

Wouldn't let U-turn on those divided roads be a single segment median though and therefore not subject to the BDP penalty?

Sent from Android using Tapatalk

Precisely my point, on a normal divided road with no access control, nearly every U turn will be via a single median segment.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:27 pm

PesachZ wrote:
CBenson wrote:
sketch wrote:cardinals should be used on every freeway and expressway, and those are going to be responsible for 99.9% of every multi-segment U turn.

I'd just state for the record that I believe that there are plenty of divided roads that are not limited access freeways and expressways and that these roads account for more than 0.1% of multi-segment U turns (particularly as there are destinations on such roads that require U-turns to get to and from).

Wouldn't let U-turn on those divided roads be a single segment median though and therefore not subject to the BDP penalty?

Certainly, not universally.
https://www.waze.com/livemap?zoom=17&la ... =-76.69045

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:21 pm

CBenson wrote:Certainly, not universally.
https://www.waze.com/livemap?zoom=17&la ... =-76.69045


I think that can fall into the minority of this category and be dealt with. There's another single segment median 1 minute away.

Also a future update to bdp may also improve the matching for such divided highway uturns to reach your destination.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
Last edited by PesachZ on Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:36 pm

Agreed. I'm not pointing to any individual multiple segment crossing with Crain Hwy as there are several. I'm just stating I believe that although a minority occurrence, it is a significant occurrence in the US that non-limited access divided highways have stuff between the carriageways.

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:26 pm

PesachZ offered a correction based on information directly from Waze Staff:
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p1310544

with the slight rewording given here:
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p1311494

As the suggestions of a more extensive rewrite were not followed up by any actual writing from anyone else, I think it makes sense to make the corrections to the USA page so the USA page can be correct. This was proposed nearly a month ago. Any objection to making the change now?

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:08 pm

I actually do have a more extensive rewrite, but without illustrations. The question becomes whether its an improvement or not: https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:CBenson ... Mechanisms

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:54 am

It seems to cover all the information that changed or seems a little vague in the current version.
Is there anyone we need to weigh in who has not seen it already?

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:22 pm

There have been many issues raised in this thread and I wasn't sure how to address them, so this is the first time that I've informed anyone that I've updated my draft page. I'll run through the important issues as I understand them.

1) There remains the problem that the Global wiki page and the USA wiki page set forth different and conflicting information. It remains unclear to me why there should be two pages.

2) Should we use "prevention" or "penalty" in the name. I have no objection to "penalty" as the name predates confirmation that the BDP is in fact a penalty. However, there does not appear to be consensus on this point so my draft continues to use "prevention."

3) Elimination of the single name-discontinuity exception. I think my draft accurately captures that the detour must be more than one segment, but that the name-discontinuity can be for a single segment.

4) Final segment name discontinuity requirement - if I understand correctly, currently the final segment of the possible detour must be part of a name-discontinuity. However, we understand that this requirement is in place to reduce processing requirements rather than to more accurately define when a detour to be avoided exists. Accordingly, we think it is more likely that this requirement may be eliminated in the future. In my draft, this requirement is in a parenthetical statement in the name-discontinuity requirement, which can easily be removed if the criteria is eliminated. However, my draft does not note that this criteria is more likely to be changed than the other criteria. My draft does not suggest that editors should edit configurations (like Edson's example) to make them future proof if this criteria were to be eliminated. My draft also has not addressed this concern of DwarfLord:
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".

This is because this statement is not completely accurate under the current criteria. Under the current criteria the last ramp segment must not carry the simple highway name as either primary or alternate to trigger the penalty. I'm not sure how to rephrase this without getting into guidance regarding whether or not we should be editing with the idea that last segment name discontinuity requirement is subject to being eliminated.

I welcome all to weigh in on my draft and the above concerns. I'd be happy to have Pesach's proposed changes to the page be made if there is not a feeling that my attempt to clarify the criteria has been successful. However, my concern with only making Pesach's proposed changes is that they do not address the final segment criteria which would mean that the wiki would continue to conflict with editors' experiences with configurations like Edson's example.
Post a reply