New Page - Tunnels

Moderator: Unholy

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby kentsmith9 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:54 pm

sketch wrote:I would imagine whatever Street View says is better than nothing, and nothing is exactly what we have for GPS data in tunnels. I use it sometimes to help in New Orleans, where big old trees can make some roads basically impossible to see from the air.

Nice. Had not considered that one either. Frankly I had no idea the street view was forcing the icon to the correct GPS location. I think there may be other things we can get from that. I think we should add that tip to nanoRep and the Best Practice pages.

sketch wrote:Regarding the elevation, I'm basically thinking "why not?" It certainly makes sense to have tunnels at a low but not railroad-low elevation—well; underwater tunnels, anyway, rather than tunnels through mountains and all.

I think the "why not" is because tunnels are not always below other roads when in the mountains as you mentioned. Current guidelines say to use relative elevation, but we have 0 saying "ground" in the editor. So mountain tunnels could be negative only if you consider there is ground above them. I suppose if the road entering the tunnel were elevated at +1 being on supports, the tunnel section could be -1 with no problem.

But before we go through all this, shouldn't we understand what Waze back end does with this information? If they assume a tunnel when below "ground" elevation, what is happening to our underpasses we have below ground?
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1791 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby sketch » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:25 pm

kentsmith9 wrote:But before we go through all this, shouldn't we understand what Waze back end does with this information? If they assume a tunnel when below "ground" elevation, what is happening to our underpasses we have below ground?

Yeah, good point. I wasn't there, but from what I understand from the meeting notes, it's to help the merger process understand that there may be a gap in GPS points for a time. So maybe it's not so bad for underpasses either. And I assume anything that does have valid GPS points for the whole time won't trigger that particular merger function. But yes, we should get this info.
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
assistant regional coordinator • south central region • usa
waze global champ • beta leader • tier one • new orleans
2017 chevrolet ss sedan 6mt • slipstream blue metallic
[ img ] [ img ]
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6454
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2077 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby CBenson » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:39 pm

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.
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: New Page - Tunnels

Postby kentsmith9 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:08 am

I am willing to second the proposal to recommend Tunnels be marked with something below "Ground" elevation even if it is just in case.

Note that we we building a message box template that we can place in sections that are providing information based more on speculation rather than known fact so we can more easily track where in the Wiki we say these things and then periodically come back and review/update/remove those comments. This would be a good example.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1791 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby harling » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:12 pm

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.
[ img ]
Area Manager, Eastern MA & Southern NH. Country Manager, USA.
harling
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: Eastern MA
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby kentsmith9 » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:54 pm

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:
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1791 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby harling » Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:42 am

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.
[ img ]
Area Manager, Eastern MA & Southern NH. Country Manager, USA.
harling
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: Eastern MA
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby kennedia » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:43 am

Is there any reason this page cannot be published in the wiki? Of course it can always be adapted over time.
kennedia
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:25 pm
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby datakoe » Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:01 am

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.
datakoe
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:30 am
Location: Moscow, Russia
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: New Page - Tunnels

Postby kentsmith9 » Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:36 pm

I posted what we have so far into the Wiki on https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Tunnels.

I did not add anything on Places, so if someone is more up to speed on the general plan for them, please consider commenting here and then adding it directly to the page.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1791 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users