Page 1 of 3

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:39 pm
by CBenson
sketch wrote:And I assume anything that does have valid GPS points for the whole time won't trigger that particular merger function.

That would makes sense, but I'm not quite as optimistic.

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:01 am
by datakoe
Hi all,

there's another one interesting point from my experience. In Russia we have a local navigation system which uses the last noticed speed when you're entering the tunnel and tracking you accordingly the road on map. Surely the road already must be in place in order to track adequately. Perhaps something similar can be implemented into Waze?
So just a road marking isn't enough in any case.

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:43 am
by harling
martinchaney wrote:There needs to be some way of marking segments as tunnels so Waze knows not to expect GPS reception in them. As it is, Waze is generating automated map errors because it thinks people are getting more directly from point A to point B and thinks there's a missing road.

My introduction to the IGN editors was the addition of a freeway segment connecting two ends of a tunnel in a straight line, intersecting and junctioned with a couple ramps and service roads along the way. They obviously saw the GPS track and concluded that there must be a new bridge there...

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:12 pm
by harling
Please forgive my late re-entry into this discussion.

The main thing that distinguishes tunnels from other segments is the lack of GPS data--and the problem we are trying to solve is not how to detect tunnels or designate them on a map, but how to route through them when faced with that lack of GPS data. (In fact, if equipment were installed in certain tunnels that provided both accurate GPS information and data service, they wouldn't require any special handling at all.) A guideline of applying a negative elevation to a tunnel segment is harmless--as long as the routing engine doesn't start making assumptions based on it.

As I have mentioned ad nauseum, there are sections of the Central Artery in Boston where underground ramps crossing both above and below the main tunnels, all directly below both street-level and elevated roads. It's a perilous area to edit, and any one-size-fits-all rule about relative elevation is almost guaranteed to fail at some point. [I am not aware of any place where we have run out of negative elevations and need to assign a non-negative elevation to an underground segment, but it could happen. I am certain that we have had to use a -5 in more than one location.]

As for the more important problem of navigation, I'm still convinced that the only manageable way to navigate a network of branching tunnels (in which GPS and/or network connectivity are unavailable) is to treat the entire "dark" graph of segments as a black box with M inputs and N outputs, and each of the (MxN) combinations has its own total length and transit time. The segments are visible to the driver, editors and routing engine for the sake of calculating distance, displaying the map, generating turn instructions and (maybe) generating the "black box" data structure itself, but any attempt to treat each internal segment between points A and B independently, as is done above-ground, will be a combinatorial nightmare.

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:42 am
by harling
kentsmith9 wrote:
harling wrote:Please forgive my late re-entry into this discussion.
The main thing that distinguishes tunnels...

Lots of good thoughts in there, but I am not sure I saw a suggestion to change in our current page. :mrgreen:

Frankly, the time of championing my own ideas regarding Waze (e.g., reviving the Best Practices page) ended a couple years ago. I have plenty of ideas, and read many good ideas from other people, but in my experience all the talk in the world has resulted in very little actual implementation. If anything I post is noteworthy today, I'll leave it to someone else to include it wherever it belongs, and not bother writing functional specs and such until I'm on the payroll.

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:15 pm
by jemay
What about any discussion about the Landmark - Tunnel? Should that be added or help in identifying the tunnel?

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:22 am
by KB_Steveo
Thread is over a year old. We should probably start a new one and fix the link in the wiki page mentioned in the last post now that the tunnel check box is in production.

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:25 am
by KB_Steveo
I also have a question. Do we have a minimum length for something to be considered a "tunnel". This is why I'm asking https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 413&zoom=6 Klondike Rd, in particular... a seagull could fly through that....

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:44 pm
by KB_Steveo
I don't have an issue calling it a tunnel, I'm just trying to start a dialogue. Something this short, do we need to click the checkbox, or is setting its elevation to -1 good enough, etc.

*edit* A dialogue that doesn't get lost in a GHO. :D

Re: New Page - Tunnels

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:43 am
by kennedia
Is there any reason this page cannot be published in the wiki? Of course it can always be adapted over time.