So I think you are both saying:
(A) "unused" or "disconnected" because, whether it is a padlock or solid fence or New Jersey wall, it should never be routed, is very rarely used, will not throw map problems. We don't treat it as a gate at all.

(B) A "restricted" gate is one that we don't want waze ever to route through, but which is frequently travelled anyhow. It could be a destination point or "add a stop" point. This is regardless of whether a clicker, RFID pass, guard, or physical padlock has anything to do with the gate.
* in a visitor-centric installation, restricted gates are used for resident-only gates, and also for contractor-only gates or staff-only gates (caveat: advisability of visitor-centric map-building yada yada)
* in a resident-centric installation restricted gates are used for contractor-only or other super-restricted access.

Have a look at the street view south from here: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... s=28402367

not so much 6-figure.
and a real padlocked chain with a line of cars driving up to it.

vectorspace
A) A BLOCKED GATE would be a way to talk about a thing that should probably be disconnected.

B) A RESTRICTED gate would quite well describe the kind of thing that you would very rarely put in, except for the contractor gate (wazers might drive through them on an almost-routine basis, but waze should not route through them). We could use the same term for describing how those in charge of visitor-favoring routing would like to construct their resident-only gates (which they don't want waze to route through). I think these could be useful, easy to understand terms in any future discussions.

So we are left with
* PesachZ's report from residents who use those chain gates routinely.
* Street view confirming that the northern gates are all chains that have to be operated manually.
____
Therefore it is plausible that routine traffic can pass through manually-operated gates that are locked with padlocks.

So it sounds like we can all agree that it boils down to a couple of simple decisions.

--GATE TYPE --
EVERYONE -- Waze can route any Wazer in or out of this gate
RESTRICTED -- Waze should not route anyone in or out of this gate, even though there is a fairly routine flow of traffic through the gate
BLOCKED -- vehicles are never or very rarely permitted to come this way -- we doubt we'll see an MP if the road is disconnected here.

-- MAPPING APPROACH --
RESIDENT-CENTRIC to be used in almost all parts of the U.S. -- EVERYONE gates are used for any gate that a resident / member can use -- the vast majority of the people who live, work, or belong to (as appropriate) the installation.


VISITOR-CENTRIC to be used in those regions where the country manager or regional coordinator prefers it. In the US, this included only 3 states. EVERYONE Gates are to be used only for gates that visitors can use. RESTRICTED gates are used for member-only, resident-only, employee-only, etc.

________________________________________________

If these things are described well enough, then the page will be a useful, logical reference.

The decision-making process is simply
1) should Waze route wazers in or out of this gate whenever this seems like the best route?
YES -- use an EVERYBODY gate
NO -- go to question 2

2) does enough traffic actually come through here that we think an MP will result if we disconnect the roads at this point?
YES -- RESTRICTED gate
NO -- BLOCKED gate

Should the need ever arise to map a visitor-centric installation with a resident-only exit, it should be clear that the RESTRICTED EXIT gate will do the job. In a more common occurrence on a visitor-centric mapping of an installation where residents-only may enter but anyone may exit, it should be clear that a RESTRICTED ENTRANCE paired with an EVERYONE EXIT will do the trick.


Since the gate recipes are only about hacking the Waze routing server, and not about trying to tell Waze anything about who has higher clearance or trust or membership or residency, or even about what method is used to actuate a gate, none of these details are primary to deciding which type of gate to use.

Questions about how the gate is closed or opened, with what difficulty, by whom, and how often are secondary questions used to answer questions 1 and 2.

Street views of walls and fences and padlocks and posts and chains and primary source testimonials from Wazers who have visited these installations can sometimes provide evidence we need to decide as PesachZ's first-hand account provides the evidence that the lock-and-chain gates should be EVERYONE and not BLOCKED.

vectorspace wrote: I am not sure this covers it because we've identified so much variation. There can be gates that are not for everyone even by your own diagram (visitor exit only, visitor entrance only, etc.)

On the diagram above, the vistor gates are EVERYONE gates. These are the only gates Waze will use for routing into/out of the installation. So "EVERYONE ENTRANCE" and "EVERYONE EXIT" would describe them.

The gates which are not for everyone in that diagram are RESTRICTED gates(entrance or exit) In that case, they are used to map real-life resident-only gates of a hypothetical installation, or else a contractor-only gate

voludu2 wrote:...to be used in those regions where the country manager or regional coordinator prefers it. In the US, this included only 3 states.

I much rather prefer to identify acceptable variation rather than call out exceptions for a few states -- that way everyone can have variation -- if needed. That could be equivalent to what you have mentioned.

[/quote]

This probably makes sense. Until this all gets hashed out one way or the other, this reference page could list the variations in common use. At this time it can't be said that one or the other is universally preferred by all well-informed editors with experience mapping, testing, and watching URs for private installations.

RCs do set standards in their regions, of course, and it might be reasonable, unless and until there is agreement on a U.S. Standard, that the state wiki pages make any statements on the usual standards in their areas.

In an installation in which we used
* EVERYONE entrances (single private)
* EVERYONE exits (0 private)
* RESTRICTED entrances (2 private)
* RESTRICTED exits (1 private)

If a wazer was travelling TO the next town, with ADD A STOP in the middle of the single private segment of the RESTRICTED exit, waze would find a route to it. Generally, this route would involve only segments inside the installation until reaching the RESTRICTED exit segment. There would be no penalty incurred to reach the ADD A STOP POINT on the single private segment. The penalty comes on the continuation trip, which actually exits the private segment to exit the installation.

I cannot think of a sane construction that would cause routing to the ADD A STOP point that took the wazer out of a different gate (an EVERYONE) gate and back in at some gate quite close to the RESTRICTED exit segment and the ADD A STOP point, because one leg or the other of the trip would have to have an additional private penalty.

Among resident-centrically rendered gated communities, this might be extremely unusual.

Among visitor-centrically-rendered communities, this might be just slightly less unusual. For example, believe I once had a discussion with an editor who told me about an exit gate that was available to anyone during the day, but only to residents at night.

vectorspace wrote: I cannot think of a Private Installation where you can be there in an illegal fashion by accident.

NSA installations.
If you accidentally take the "NSA restricted entrance" from the Baltimore Washington Parkway at Ft. Meade instead of the one just past it, you will be unable to u-turn. You will arrive at the gate and you will be questioned.

On the other hand, NSA does not have visitors. So a RESIDENT FACILITY approach would seem perfect.

The NSA headquarters has an interesting feature -- authorized people can enter the NSA installation either from the outside or from Fort Meade directly. Facilities like this, depending on the actual real-world rules, need to be mapped either as if they are side-by-side (with perhaps a street segment between) or as if one is enclosed within the other.

vectorspace wrote:

voludu2 wrote:If you accidentally take the "NSA restricted entrance"

Regarding this being an example of a mistake getting onto a private installation, I guess I don't agree. [...] you will not get onto the private installation. The guards will turn you around.

Then I'm not sure I understand the question. One prime reason we are having this discussion is that gates on these installations prevent access.

And it would be particularly inconvenient to wazers if waze were to advise them to approach any security gates that would cause them to be detained for questioning, even though they would not actually be able to gain access to the facility (in the NSA headquarters example, the driver is invited to enter the gate, of course, and to remain inside the facility while being questioned, but this is different from gaining access to the facility)

One nice feature of google maps is that it can provide the warning when a route involves travel on private segments. This gives the driver a little heads-up in case they made a mistake choosing their destination.