Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Fri May 23, 2014 3:10 am

Found it here:

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Sty ... terchanges

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Sat May 24, 2014 12:31 am

qwaletee wrote:

Thanks. I guess this one sort-of-is sort-of-isn't truly an interchange. Be nice to mention some of the major interchange types on the main page in the summary section.

I see what you mean. Someone must have fixed the redirect on it. I searched now and got the 2 results for Junction Style Guide and Junction Style/Interchanges.

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:47 pm

Something to consider, and I'm not sure where you would put. I had someone on chat with a UR where someone was routed off and back on a highway. When I started looking at the road names to make sure the detour prevention mechanism was working properly, I found a segment with no name. The person on chat said he had just requested a wayfinder at the interchange. So in order to get the 2 out Freeway segments to be different names, he had changed the one to No Name.

It was a simple fix to divide the No Name segment and to name it before the next ramp to get the detour prevention mech to work.

Maybe just a note to be aware of other situations in the area like Detour Prevention.

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:26 am

KB_Steveo wrote:Yeah, I've noticed this, the other day I took a left on to a road with a roundabout, just after I took my left, I heard "continue straight for xx minutes to Hwy-YY" or something similar, with no mention of the roundabout. When I got to the roundabout, it only told me to continue straight, with no mention of the street name, and then reminded me of my turn at Hwy-YY.

CR-A, north of Grand Chute? I go thru there quite a bit. That one use to work fine, after the update, no. Toolbox doesn't highlight it as wrong either.

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:33 am

I said something similar in the other thread, but I don't believe the geometry guidance laid out in this JSG. I have never found an intersection configuration that gives an instruction at 33 degrees where you could eliminate the instruction by changing the angle to zero degrees. I do not believe that having a departure angle between 0-21 degrees does anything to suppress navigation instructions.

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Tue May 20, 2014 5:24 pm

I'm confused again. I thought your testing showed this to be true for a split with two options as well.

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Tue May 20, 2014 5:49 pm

I see that as being true for a two way split as well. But I guess for a two branch split it is correct, while for more branches it becomes problematic.

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Fri May 30, 2014 10:20 am

I would just note that if the information here is correct, then a plain box intersection has the disadvantage that the timing data for a straight movement is not distinguished from the timing data for a left turn. There is some question as to how much this contributes to right/U/right routes in place of straight through routes. Theoretically, neither the bowtie nor the diagonals in the box method suffer from this problem.

I acknowledge this is highly speculative as it depends on how the data is collected and assigned to small segments is small areas.

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Fri May 30, 2014 1:16 pm

qwaletee wrote:A plain box intersection as opposed to what? A bowtie with a single convergence point?
Yes. A plain box as opposed to either a bowtie with a single convergence point or a box with diagonals with the three segments (one for each direction) connected to the segment on which you wait for the light.

qwaletee wrote: The box breaks off the right from the left and straight through. The only problem might be the chunking of left together with other traffic, at a left turn restrictive signal.


Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Fri May 30, 2014 3:24 pm

Your conclusion doesn't seem to address your premises.

PesachZ wrote:Based on my under standing of the turn delay recordings, and how it is affected by these small segments it would not cause the right-u-right vs. straight.

Here you say right-u-right vs. straight.

PesachZ wrote:This will not cause a Right-Uturn-Right though instead of a left unless the time it takes to complete that maneuver is less than the time it would take to pass through the intersection from the beginning of that short segment and turn left (a very short time). If the situation is such that a right-u turn-right is faster than a left, it would be suggested even without the short segment in the mix.

Here you say Right-Uturn-Right instead of a left.

I think I agree with your facts and logic, but you haven't actually addressed right-u-right vs. straight routes.

The theory is that the short segment between the split segments causes waze to fail to distinguish between traffic turning left and traffic going straight. Say there is a long red for the left turn when the straight through is green, but not the opposite, a fairly common configuration. Then as waze doesn't distinguish between the left turn traffic and the straight traffic, waze thinks the left turn is a faster than reality and that the straight traffic is slower than reality. We do see the occasional right-u-right route. Anything that causes waze to underestimate the time of the straight route, should in theory contribute to more right-u-right routes.

The question is simply whether the cross-segment causes waze to fail to distinguish between left turn traffic and straight traffic. If the bowtie and the box with diagonals configurations enable waze to distinguish between left turn traffic and straight traffic, then that would be an advantage to those configurations.
Post a reply