To begin with, this looks like a translation of a non-English page, possibly Dutch or German. That is probably behind the issues in 4-6 & 10. This would also explain 7 & 8, as "u-turns are usually illegal" is not the case in most of the US. As for 9, for what this article is discussing that isn't true in the US. U-turns are good and useful things on split roads, which seems to be all this article is discussing. On unsplit roads it's a matter of the vehicle you're driving. In my Volvo the answer is ad-hoc is preferable, in my sister's Fit the U-turn is reasonable to perform. (Of course right now with TTS still not giving an instruction for these, we don't want it anyways! )

In all honesty this page looks rather old. There's some useful information here, but we need either to cut out the U-turn stuff and leave that for another page, or massively update it to include info on the u-turn prevention mechanism and the new u-turn arrows.

sketch wrote:1.
We should ask this page's author, fvwazing, whether the names are used for anything.

I can do that.

sketch wrote:2.
That's my main problem with it. Screenshots showing "what not to do" that aren't conspicuously labeled as such are extremely misleading.

Agreed

sketch wrote:

10. The 4-way crossings description has a debate going on whether that intersection allows U-Turns when it is locked. This should be taken off-line with a decision as to what should be said.

I'm not even quite sure what that means, exactly.

I assume you mean you don't understand the current page discussion around the U-Turns. I did not look to determine who added the contradictory statement, but I can and then ask that editor, unless someone else knows for sure if this is even relevant any more.

sketch wrote:--
Generally, if the classification names aren't actually used, I believe the "don't do this" images should be removed entirely, replaced with some of the "do this" images (e.g., the proper configuration for a "DSSS" and "DDDS"), and incorporated into the Junction Style Guide just above the bow-tie in a section for split road junctions.

I was thinking of keeping these (or similar replacement images) showing a bad junction and then the good version. Yes this whole page can become a subpage of the JSG.

sketch wrote:(Aside: If we're gonna make that thread, the ramp and highway/freeway split sections should be moved to the limited access interchange style guide.)

Agreed. If I start it first I will be sure to note that as well.

Little has been discussed on this page, but a few changes have been made. I just moved the content into two tables that I believe are easier to follow now. One of the entries previously made statements on how to prevent u-turns that I have never heard before related to whether a segment was locked or not. Unless someone can confirm or point to that current evidence, I have taken it out.

One entry is missing any text -- it never existed (I never noticed in the old format). We may want to update the language in the contents.

1.
We should ask this page's author, fvwazing, whether the names are used for anything.

2.
That's my main problem with it. Screenshots showing "what not to do" that aren't conspicuously labeled as such are extremely misleading.

3.
That sounds good.

10.
I'm not even quite sure what that means, exactly.

--
Generally, if the classification names aren't actually used, I believe the "don't do this" images should be removed entirely, replaced with some of the "do this" images (e.g., the proper configuration for a "DSSS" and "DDDS"), and incorporated into the Junction Style Guide just above the bow-tie in a section for split road junctions.

(Aside: If we're gonna make that thread, the ramp and highway/freeway split sections should be moved to the limited access interchange style guide.)

kentsmith9 wrote:[*] The Germany note has a typo of some kind. Need to have someone from Germany confirm which is legal from the statement: "U-turns are allowed..., except they are permitted..."


[*] The whole first section is about preventing U-Turns. Is that something we are really trying to do as a general rule in all countries?

About the "German typo": I took the liberty to correct the sentence, as it's scope is explicitely limited my country. Imho, it can be deleted entirely, because we have a local Wiki in German language with complete information.

U-turns are allowed unless they are explicitely forbidden - or (and that is a part that is missing entirely) they are not safe to execute. This is the judgement of the driver - and afterwards of the judge if things go sour

My view on the second question: In Germany, disallowing a U-turn over a median is not the standard procedure. But there are quite a lot of junctions where the U-turn is explicitely forbidden, so it is good to have information about this in the Wiki.

Therefore, to add my countrie's point-of-view to the discussion about whether U-turns should be allowed: The champs for Germany have agreed to allow U-turns only in cases which we find suitable - especially if the junction's dimensions allow for an easy U-turn without manouvering. This is not a problem for most split-roads, but it is an issue on two-way segments where U-turn technology was invented recently.

Regards,

Detlev

If this is all about the u-turns -- should it be renamed? Currently, u-turn prevention is handled as a section of https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Style_Guide/Intersections#Avoiding_U_turns

The information about how to prevent u-turns when a divided/dual roadway is intersected by another road is not the same as found elsewhere, should be should be updated immediately if the page is to be kept.