AndyPoms wrote:Junction Node & Geometry Node are the two we deal with the most... Who edited the wiki to add the "incorrectly called..." part?

That may have been myself or Alan, but we can just check the history to be sure if we want to know for sure. I recall back in the early cleanup days of the glossary I was consolidating and clarifying the terms being used and this was one of them. I think there was a forum thread discussing the differentiation of nodes being elements on a segment and points being at the end of segments. However I think we somehow we did not redefine "end node" which crossed over (and should have been an "end point".

AndyPoms wrote:I think there was talk of a "transition node" that only connects two segments - like at town borders, or when a paved street become dirt road somewhere in the middle.

I thought in a prior thread we discussed unnecessary junction points being two linked segments. However since there are necessary junction points with only two linked segments, we would need to have a name for it.

Proposed:
If we stick to separating points and nodes, then I personally like "transition" and two segments meet to create "transition points" and three or more segments create "junction points".

If we merge the meaning of nodes and points, then we can use "transition node" or "transition point" interchangeably.

Baring any comments to the contrary, it sounds like a node can be in the middle and end of segments and always require the defining term junction or geometry. Further, a junction node with two segments is also a transition node.

Can we also say that node and point can be used interchangeably with the same definition?

With additional feedback on PM, I think the primary problem is that it is difficult to prevent people from using a term that is already ambiguous on its own. Point and Node are so similar in English that it will be hard to enforce specific definitions.

I therefore propose it would be easier to always use an adjective (or more specifically for these examples a noun adjunct) in front of both Point and Node to decrease confusion with users. That way we have less confusion by being more specific like:

• Junction Point (or Junction Node; they are both a junction and we have JNF)
• Stopping Point (less likely to be called a Stopping Node)
• Destination Point (less likely to be called a Destination Node)
• Starting Point (less likely to be called a Starting Node)
• Geometry Node (often called a Geometry Point)
• End Node (often called an End Point)
• Transition Node (easily called a Transition Point)
• Adjustment Node (or Adjustment Point)

I think the idea should be clear enough: don't use Point or Node independent of an adjective (or noun adjunct) and we avoid the ambiguous issue. That way Node or Point can be used interchangeably by users (and Waze) as they please and the adjective will be the clarification.

You also can see above even if we said Point or Node on their own meant something specific, we still have to define the other terms or we are back to 4 ambiguous Points and 4 ambiguous Nodes.

We already have this issue on other terms like Rank and Level. So many users and even Waze use them interchangeably and for those two terms we might have been better off to just require an adjective to be specific. (We may still need to do that.)

sketch wrote:I cannot agree with this approach. Yes, it's hard to enforce specific definitions within the general forum population, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for consistency within the Wiki.

Also, I'll say again that the editor itself refers to a junction node as a "node".

A "node" is an element of a network where other elements of the network meet. It's not really the same as a "point", which can exist outside of a network.

Junction nodes should be referred to as nodes, as they represent the point of contact between various segments in the road network. Same with transition nodes, which are just a type of junction node. Stop/destination and start points should be referred to as points. Geometry "nodes" would be more accurately referred to as "handles"...

Maybe we are half way in agreement. Would you say my proposal would work if I removed the option to call the terms by alternate names, but we continue to have our definitions include adjectives to improve clarity?

And it sounds like you would propose Junction Nodes replace Junction Points.

Note that "node" is also used for junction nodes in the editor, a la "One node selected". Maybe I missed it, but I haven't yet seen this mentioned.

I agree with many that "node" should be the sole accepted word for this. "Junction node" may be necessary upon first impression, but calling it a "node" further down a particular paragraph should be acceptable if it won't cause confusion. "Geometry node", on the other hand, should always be stated as such.

"Point" is fine (and perhaps desirable) for "stop points" even with the upcoming Places system, as both "point landmarks/places" and the navigation point for area/polygon landmarks/places serve essentially the same function as a "stop point".

I cannot agree with this approach. Yes, it's hard to enforce specific definitions within the general forum population, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for consistency within the Wiki.

Also, I'll say again that the editor itself refers to a junction node as a "node".

A "node" is an element of a network where other elements of the network meet. It's not really the same as a "point", which can exist outside of a network.

Junction nodes should be referred to as nodes, as they represent the point of contact between various segments in the road network. Same with transition nodes, which are just a type of junction node. Stop/destination and start points should be referred to as points. Geometry "nodes" would be more accurately referred to as "handles"...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

kentsmith9 wrote: Maybe we are half way in agreement. Would you say my proposal would work if I removed the option to call the terms by alternate names, but we continue to have our definitions include adjectives to improve clarity?

And it sounds like you would propose Junction Nodes replace Junction Points.

Second question first: absolutely. Junctions are the one place I think no other word than "node" should be used. It's in the editor, and it makes sense semantically, as I explained above.

As to the first question, yes, that's fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2