[Page Update] Junction Style Guide

[kentsmith9]

I likely did. I stand corrected.

[kentsmith9]

In the new subsection on Interchanges in the Wayfinder section I am finding it very hard to discern the instructions in that section without images or a pictorial of what to put where. We could even set up some mock roadways with only streets visible on a plain background. That way we can help people visualize what is happening. To be honest I am not 100% certain how to make the roadway name for a freeway continuation not say the same thing as the segments before and after (if after is necessary). Since we are not supposed to use "to I-xxx" any more I tried "for I-xxx" and it capitalized the "For", so I reverted it back to "to" until I hear what we are proposing to use instead. Current instructions just say don't use "to". Then we should give examples of alternate proposals to fix it.

[kentsmith9]

Alternatively, you could just add the control city anyway, if there is one. (The sign that used to just have an I-75 shield now has I-75 shields flanking the word "Detroit", so that made it easier.)

What about the city name field? If that changes does it force enough difference for it to be announced?

Maybe we can make a list of options available starting with the most likely and most favored for this case. Sounds like options include:

1. Add the control city name if it appears on the BGS.
2. Create another stub (before or after?) the stub for the continuation without any street or city name information.
3. (I personally never had a problem with "to" in the visual instructions. I am on a freeway and I come to a split. I want to know which way "to" continue with my current freeway. Seemed totally logical to me.)
4. Others I missed or forgot?

[kentsmith9]

3. (I personally never had a problem with "to" in the visual instructions. I am on a freeway and I come to a split. I want to know which way "to" continue with my current freeway. Seemed totally logical to me.)

The "to" you highlighted isn't the preposition we're trying to work with (actually, as part of an infinitive, it isn't a preposition at all) – rather, you want to know which way to continue "with" the current freeway.

To continue "with" the current freeway, a hypothetical valid command might be "stay with I-10 to the right". Also reasonable to say would be to continue "on" I-10, or to stay to the right "for" I-10.

And aren't we done with this argument? If some of us find it confusing, multiply that percentage by the number of users, and that many users might find it confusing. So go with the option that doesn't confuse anyone.

No problem and no desire to confuse anyone. Since I was not confused I will refrain from further recommendation of "to".

I just want to be sure we are clear in the Wiki guidelines in this wayfinder naming section for what to use. If we should never have the prefix in front of the roadname on that segment, let's strike that option. If you are proposing a different prefix, I am not sure if that is part of what you are recommending above. Maybe you can clarify what you are proposing for TTS change or wishes vs. wayfinder segment names.

I think we are down to:

1. Remove the compass cardinal from the stub name
2. Create another stub (before or after?) the stub for the continuation without any street or city name information.
3. Add a space after the stub name
4. Include a word or phrase before the segment name other than "to" which will not be confusing to drivers in the display or through TTS.

[kentsmith9]

I can support the four options you have listed and in that order. We can wait a few days for additional comments before we add it to the Wiki for that section.

Also pictures are worth their 1000 words, and like the example drawing you posted earlier. I do think in the wayfinder table we likely need images that we can simply mock up with example road names. I was thinking we can have larger images created and then post them as thumbnails or we can also have a small image hyperlink to a larger more detailed version of the images.

[kentsmith9]

I'm good if you want to make these discussed changes directly.

[kentsmith9]

Except, signage preceding the exit suggests that the road splits.

I liked your logic and would have argued that the signage in your screen shot does not suggest a split. One direction is clearly marked exit, while the other is not. Thus, its quite clear which way you should go in the absence of an instruction. However, the signs on the bridge before those signs don't mention the exit and seems to suggest split much more to me.

This signage confused a visiting Wazer who submitted a UR asking for continuation guidance. Thus the additional language for when signage suggests a split.

I think this point is important. If we are getting URs saying that users are confused, then we should look to make changes that will provide better instructions.

For instance, I'm still not sure what the "stay to the left" instruction discussed here should say. But copying the BGS results in much confusion, so we've deviated from the signs.

I personally don't always notice the small "Exit" element of the BGSs when traveling at 70+ MPH with traffic and other distractions in the car. In other stand alone navigation systems I have usually appreciated the stay to the left or right in situations like this even if it was obvious because I have actually taken the wrong route when I got confused and misinterpreted the signs.

Is it really a problem when you get a keep to the right or left at a true split vs a true exit at an interchange?

[kentsmith9]

Coming off the Bay Bridge you have 5 freeway/highway choices/directions in fast succession.
* I-80
* I-580 W
* I-580 E & 24
* I-880

BayBridgeFreeways.png

(143.46 KiB) Downloaded 597 times

I am pretty sure I have now taken every combination off the bridge since I went through the area over the last year. I do appreciate getting a little extra guidance (keep left/right) as I am trying to weave between cars not getting trapped too far on the left or right. Some of these leave right and some leave left. I can only imagine for the less experienced drivers you might get more confused with no instructions.

One question. As I was relooking at the current wayfinder naming that Sketch and I have been updating with images, I realized the directions for the non-exiting route may be confusing and long winded when we cram all the upcoming freeways and city destinations. It would be better if we could not name all the freeway segments through that area and just let the first segment of each unique route be the only segments named through that area. Then the navigation would pick up only that segment name at the end of the string of empty segment names like we do with multi-split ramps. However I have never seen any comments if non-ramps behave the same way when unnamed. If we don't know we could test it pretty easily on a rig I believe.

[kentsmith9]

Agreed as long as at each split the instruction includes what a driver would see on the BGS. especially in a confusing series as you mentioned, a driver (at least I) would be looking at the signs for confirmation that they're in the correct lane. If what they see doesn't match what they hear, you could adding to the confusion instead of reducing it.

All unnamed segments regardless of type inherit the name of the next segment on the route (unless they are at the end of the route). Though you have to be careful that the inherited name doesn't match the s-in or other s-outs of the wayfinder to preserve its uniqueness and instructions.

I want to try it out up here. I am confident I can set it up correctly, but concerned it will not operate as expected and confuse a lot of people.

I guess the good news is most people coming off the bridge will be commuters fully aware of the route and will likely be giving reports if there is an issue. I just need to monitor it for the week after I set it up. Maybe I will test it tonight.

[kentsmith9]

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.

Those are two good points I had not considered.

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"