agreedsketch wrote:First of all, "doglegs" solves a different problem than changing the type of AGCs. A dogleg changes the instruction from "stay"/"exit" to "turn"; the type change would change some instances of "exit" to "stay".
So doglegs aren't going anywhere. Most AGCs should give "turn" instructions anyway, unless they are so far from the intersection that a "stay" and a later "turn" are both merited. An instruction besides "turn" is confusing, whether it's "stay" or "exit".
The type change would solve only one "problem" — where MH/mH to PS/S gives an "exit right" instead of a "stay to the right", more common now with the new road types system. Yes, "stay" is more correct than "exit" in certain of these situations (though in most such situations, "turn" is most correct).
I don't believe "exit" is really all that difficult to understand, though, so I don't really think it's necessary. But I recognize that not all agree.
I could support an exception only where it is necessary to preserve a "stay" instruction on the right. It'd look ungainly, but it'd be easier to detect and eradicate whenever the Junction Box does come. A total rewrite of the AGC rules is unnecessary and overbroad, would lead to an ugly map, would be extremely tedious to implement, and would serve no purpose other than to change a few "exit" instructions to "stay" instructions. We know the circumstances that lead to these, so we should tailor any exception to these situations. We chose to use the lower, not the higher, of the two types for a reason (because it works equally as well, and because the alternative looks like crap).
"Doglegs" should still be used wherever necessary. Road type has absolutely 0 to do with the difference between "turn" and "stay"/"exit".
Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2