sketch wrote:I don't know that I agree with splitting "diverging" and "crossing" roads into separate articles. Both should be incorporated into a single subpage on "Intersections", IMO.

I am open to that. If you want to take the content I have for the two separate pages and combine into the one page you are doing, no problem. If you only want to use parts of it, no problem. I am not married to my changes as they are. I just need the whole of the JSG to be smaller than it is today, while not losing the content.

sketch wrote:The most glaring content omission from the current JSG as far as I can tell is that of guidance for split road intersections. There is none. The section on the bowtie is the only thing there relating to split road intersections at all; while that section explains the bowtie well, it kind of comes out of nowhere, as there's nothing before it suggesting even the possibility of an intersection with one or two split roads.

Sounds like we could use one if you are so inclined to work on it.

sketch wrote:Anyway, as of now I'm working on the Interchanges subpage. This will incorporate the current Limited Access Interchange Style Guide and the "Ramps", "Highway/Freeway Junctions", and "Limited Access Interchanges" sections of the current JSG, so you can leave those sections alone. With your approval, I will incorporate the "Interchanges and ramps" section from the JSG revision page I made into your revision page so we can keep it all together. My draft Interchange page can also be moved to "Junction Style Guide/Interchange" or "/Interchanges" if you prefer.

Sweet.

sketch wrote:"Interchanges" vs. "Interchange", what do you think? It seems that "Interchanges" fits better into the feel of our Wiki, but it'd be nice to be able to link to [[interchange]] without having to use pipes/link names.

The page name should include the plural if we are talking about more than one type. JSG could have just been [[Junctions]] if it only described them. Since the page is all about how we recommend to lay them out, it becomes a style guide. If the Interchanges page is just a branch from the JSG, then we don't really need "style guide" added on the end. Therefore it becomes [[Junction Style Guide/Interchanges]].

We can have [[Interchange]] and [[Interchanges]] be redirects to [[Junction Style Guide/Interchanges]] with no problem.

Let me know if that was confusing.

sketch wrote:I combined the "diverging" and "crossing" roads pages into one: https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Sty ... ersections

Looks great to me.

Templates added. I had them redirect back to this thread for now in case they have questions. If you intended a different forum thread, let me know and I can change it.

Isn't it covered under Bowtie Intersection?

Once we get junction boxes, all this goes away.

The short term advantage of Bowties is simplicity with correct turn instructions, which is our primary goal, correct?

On the client map it is hard to tell the road actually is a bowtie. I think only us OCD types notice it is not perfectly matched to the road, but so are a lot of things more obvious than this.

I also fixed the link from the Wayfinder Glossary entry to the JSG subpage.

sketch wrote:I'm not sure if the segment-segment delay function is even active; I heard someone say it isn't actually.

Sketch, if you mean the tracking of the traverse time across a segment separately depending on the different S-Out connections, I asked Yigal that specific question because I had seen actual routing examples where I believed that feature was not active. He confirmed that they do track and use that data today for routing time.

sketch wrote:

kentsmith9 wrote: Sketch, if you mean the tracking of the traverse time across a segment separately depending on the different S-Out connections, I asked Yigal that specific question because I had seen actual routing examples where I believed that feature was not active. He confirmed that they do track and use that data today for routing time.

Gotcha. That sounds familiar now that I think about it. I believe the assertion that it wasn't active was before the meetup.

Yes. I think I may have started that rumor before the meetup because of the failure I had seen one day. Yigal said it was problem a different issue that made it appear to be broken to me.

PesachZ wrote:It's my understanding now that anything other than a disconnect is just a penalty. Sometimes it may be compounded penalties based in the situation, but still a penalty. The only absolute restriction seems to be a disconnect.

I only mention it to explain the occasional override may be for to the alternative routes carrying higher penalties.

Although with the one-way bridge routing problem on freeways last year (or so) there was a change that prevented reverse driving on known one-way segments. Maybe that is the only absolute that cannot be overridden if there is no alternate route.

qwaletee wrote:

PesachZ wrote: I agree that while the utility might be necessary, the appearance of diagonals are unsightly IMHO.

Exactly, If you give it 2-3 geonodes and have it parallel the "bypassed" roads, very closely, you can hardly see them on the map.

The whole reason we draw them in it to prevent automated errors from the server when the vehicle GPS is too far from the intersection point. Having the road close to the intersection may defeat the purpose if it is not close enough to the actual road turning the corner.

These situations are part of the reason Bgodette came up with the Junction Box recommendation. Therefore we are going to replace all of them with junction boxes soon.