I agree. Whether or not the lanes start just before the exit/split/ramp is highly relevant to the wayfinder judgment call. I have been thinking about that recently. Same thing where all the exit only lanes on the right only just started at the previous interchange, maybe less than a mile behind.

So the left exit should require at least one exit-only lane, and that the exit-only lane(s) started substantially before the exit point. The right exit should still require that at least as many lanes exit as continue, and should be qualified by saying that a wayfinder is not necessary if those exit-only lanes started at the immediately-previous interchange.

I would prefer to set the minimum recommended angle at 10°, still easy enough to edit and in accordance with this section of the Interchanges page.

I don't wanna be too rigid about it since many editors will be eyeballing that angle anyway. I don't know that it's worth editing everything on the map to accommodate the admittedly broken and ineffective closure tool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

That sounds good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

qwaletee wrote: "At least as many" is overstating it. There just needs to be enough to make the exit and "non exit" have some level of parity. Do we really want to exclude a situation where left has 5 and right has 4? That just seems arbitrary.

Can't argue with that. I was just restating the existing rule.

What do we make it, then? The goal is to write the rule in definite terms so that there are no borderline cases, or as few as possible. "Where at least as many lanes exit as continue, or where at least 2 lanes are exit-only"?

We're talking about common-side exits right now, but we can certainly talk about that too. I think that's more complicated than it needs to be for uncommon-side exits.

For an uncommon-side exit, it should require only (at least) one exit-only lane that started substantially before the exit. If there aren't any exit-only lanes, a wayfinder isn't needed. I like the "only-one-lane continuation" idea, but I imagine it ends up being redundant in practice.

Fredo-p wrote:In regards to the junction style guide/intersection, I see that examples are needed. I know of a few locations here in AZ that meet the examples. Do I just update here, input the update notice in another thread already started, or start a new thread [Update] Junction Style Guide/Intersection

I think it's fine to use this thread for that, but there's certainly nothing wrong with creating a new one for the intersections subpage if you'd rather keep it more compartmentalized. Just link it here if you do.

DwarfLord wrote:How about this for defining non-obvious continuation?

At exits, the continuation path for a ramp, highway or freeway will be considered "non-obvious" if it has least two fewer travel lanes in a given direction after the exit than before it on the typical exit side, or at least one less travel lane on the atypical exit side. The continuation will also be considered "non-obvious" if it consists of a single lane.

(Edit: I was thinking about controlled access highways. For non-controlled access, like a city street that is now a MH due to FC, maybe the threshold should be one fewer on either side.)

Not bad, except that you'd have to also define "travel lane" to mean a lane that's been there a while rather than a lane that started just before the exit, and that two exit only lanes isn't always enough, and that one exit only lane is sometimes enough. That's why I defined it relative to the total number of lanes.

Qwaletee, your draft captures the reasoning behind the rules nicely, but the point of drafting the rules is to make it cut-and-dry and not dependent on the editor. Editor opinions on wayfinders have been historically varied. That shouldn't get in the way of a consistent Waze experience.

--
I have my own suggestions, which are largely the same as the existing rules, but with some clarification as to their intent. It'll take some time in front of a real keyboard to hammer them out, but I'll get them down here when I have a chance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Except that rules can be and already have been easily and simply drafted to solve this problem. It is well demonstrated that some high-level editors don't believe that wayfinders are necessary. If you don't already know that, you haven't been around for enough of them to know your definition is a problem. That doesn't mean the other drivers in their areas won't potentially be confused when they get to a big split.

You are ignoring that the rule can be drafted such that confusion will be prevented without overdoing it but still erring on the side of caution. By drafting the rule properly, we take ONE editor's judgment out of the equation and replace it with the judgment of EVERY editor that came to the wiki update forum and drafted the guidance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

The problem with leaving the freeway segments unnamed (if I'm reading correctly) is that reports on that part of the freeway won't have any road name to put on them. Also possibly detour prevention? I guess that's two problems, but I'm not sure of one.

If you're worried about instructions being too long, worry no more — the TTS changes in 3.8.0 included one I particularly like. If the main prompt and the "and then" prompt have exactly the same street name, the street name is kept to the end, so like, "Stay to the left, then stay to the right at I-580 W / San Rafael". The name is only said once per prompt. It saves a lot of time on such things.

DwarfLord wrote:Great discussion! Based on what has been said here I've modified the "signage suggests a split" language, tweaked the definition of "travel lane", and offer this for the wiki:

New suggested wiki text wrote:A wayfinder gives a user an instruction directing them how to continue on the road the user is already on, in situations where it may be unclear. A wayfinder is warranted in the following cases:

• The continuation path for a controlled-access ramp, highway or freeway has least two fewer travel lanes after the exit than before it on the typical exit side (a "travel lane" is defined as a lane that, before nearing the exit, is neither striped nor signed as a departing lane over a length long enough that a naïve driver might consider it a long-distance lane);
• The continuation path for an uncontrolled ramp or highway, or for an exit on the atypical side, has at least one less travel lane after the exit than before it;
• The continuation path consists of a single lane; or
• Some or all of the associated signage may be interpreted as suggesting a split -- for example, lacking typical exit language, or with arrows pointing left and right but no clear "straight-ahead" choice -- or is otherwise unclear or inconsistent so that drivers may be confused as to which way is the continuation or whether there is a continuation at all.

For comparison, the current wiki guidance is as follows:

Existing wiki text wrote:A wayfinder gives a user an instruction reminding them to stay on the road the user is already on, in situations where a reminder is warranted. A wayfinder is warranted in the following situations:

• Lane drops, where at least as many lanes leave the road as stay on the road;
• Non-obvious continuations, where at least one "exit only" lane exists on the side of the road where exits are not normally placed (in a right-hand traffic country, exiting traffic is to the left and continuing traffic is to the right); and
• Inconsistent signage, where a highway continues as a numbered route, but signs call it only by a name.

Concurrence?

Looks pretty good, although I'm not so sure I like the rule change for typical-side exits. There are situations where a wayfinder is warranted even though only one travel lane is lost – where 3 lanes splits into 1.5 continuing and 1.5 exiting. This situation is pretty common on the Interstate system.

I would also like to see "Where the exit is on the atypical side," text at the beginning of each line, to emphasize the differences. As is, it kind of gets lost in the text.

Also, pardon me if I missed it, but I'd been on the road for the last week and a half and only reading forums on mobile. Did you insert the uncontrolled vs. controlled distinction? Also, wayfinders aren't used on ramps. Those are ramp splits and are governed differently.

If you want to incorporate these changes, feel free. If you'd rather I drafted my own, I wouldn't mind, but it might be tomorrow.

kentsmith9 wrote: The concern I have is with this stretch of 1 mile of freeway we have 4 directions. If we show on the wayfinder segments the roads not exiting at the first point you would get the following from TTS based on current BGS visual:
"Keep left for I-80 I-580 SR-24 Berkeley Sacramento San Rafael Downtown Oakland Hayward Stockton"

The next instruction staying on the freeway would be a little better:
"Keep left for I-80 I-580 Berkeley Sacramento San Rafael"

Since we cannot remove the names, maybe we just reduce the first keep left segment to a short version of the above to something like:
"Keep left for I-80 I-580 SR-24 Downtown Oakland Hayward Sacramento"

Yeah, I wouldn't mind truncating it somehow. "I-80 / I-580 / to SR-24" maybe? Or, honestly, since you're only actually on I-80, it might be better and make more actual sense just to label it "I-80 / Berkeley / Sacramento" and treat the others as upcoming-exit signs. So you'll get "stay to the left to I-80, Berkeley, Sacramento, then exit right to I-580 E, to SR-24, Downtown Oakland, Hayward-Stockton".

Or, wait, are 80 and 580 seriously concurrent for that time? That's pretty weird. Then the first segment becomes "I-80 / I-580 W / Berkeley / Sacramento / San Rafael", I guess. Kind of long, but I think the third sign is best treated as an upcoming-exit sign rather than part of the wayfinder.