Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:14 am
DwarfLord wrote:I'm definitely open to situations I may not have considered! 1.5 lanes...that's a new reference to me...does that mean a split where the center lane can go either way? To me that case is handled by the fourth item, signage that suggests a split. If the signage is abundantly clear about one direction being "continue on" and the other being "exit", and only one travel lane is lost, I am not sure a wayfinder is called for based on the lane behavior alone.
Ramp-ramp splits are covered below in their own section. The section on naming addresses navigation instructions. Ramp types will always give instructions if the names are different, so the type complications and display considerations are not in play there. It's much less complex – if the name of the s-in matches the name of one s-out, the s-out won't get a prompt. This includes "no name". It could maybe be explained better, but it's there.Thanks, yes I had been interpreting the term "wayfinder" to refer to any situation where extra guidance for continuing on the same road is helpful. In San Jose for example we have a ramp that goes on for nearly two miles with two sub-exits of its own! But if the term is not to be used for anything other than controlled-access MH and F types that would be good for me to be clear about. In that case, what if anything do we call continuing-path guidance in other situations?
Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:28 am
DwarfLord wrote:Good stuff. I am thinking we need to be clarify some terms before we can craft the best language.
The term "dropped lane" is good, but does it mean a dropped travel lane -- i.e., a lane that, for some distance before approaching the intersection, was neither signed nor striped as an exit lane? Or does it include lanes that were never anything but an exit lane? For example, is the right-hand lane of this segment considered a "dropped lane" when it departs for Hwy 150 to Ojai? The right-hand lane joins at the start of the segment and continues over half a mile before it exits for Hwy 150, but it is striped as an exit for that entire length.
The term "wayfinder-type signage" -- would it include a BGS with arrows straight down, or no arrows at all, over the continuing lanes, regardless of what neighboring exit signage looked like? To be sure I am not advocating that "wayfinder-type signage" by that definition would warrant a wayfinder! My thinking is that only signage and striping that suggests a split, or that is absent, unclear, or inconsistent would be sufficient to warrant a wayfinder based on signage alone. In fact, by this criterion, the absence of "wayfinder-type signage" would warrant a wayfinder much more than its presence.
Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:14 pm
Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:18 pm
Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:11 am
kentsmith9 wrote:CBenson wrote:It can be disconcerting to have the next instruction be for an exit a couple of states away and 10 hours away.
I have always agreed this is a problem. This is where the freaking "continue" instruction that ALL the other navigation systems provide has us beat. Such a simple instruction. Hopefully we can fix that with Junction Boxes!
Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:42 pm
PesachZ wrote:sketch wrote:
While these have already been added to the wiki along with a note to use option #4 as a last resort only because it can prevent turn delay speed averages for routing, I discovered there be another good option as well.
- Add a control city, if it is known.
- Remove the compass cardinal from the stub name.
- Add a space after the stub name.
- Create a freeway-type stub just before the junction with no street name.
You can make the segment after the split be no-name, even the lead in segment and the segment after the no-name stub share identical names and road types.
I tested an example with no alt names and it works fine (audio below), there is also a live working example with alt names in Connecticut. When seeing this up especially if it will be a long no-name segment instead of a stub, on a MH or Fwy, care should be taken with alt names to ensure working detour prevention.
TTS audio to the no-name Fwy stub
EDIT: Added PLs
Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:04 pm
PesachZ wrote:I think we can document the order of preference should be to name the two wayfinder segments to:
1) Match the BGS provided it is different than the lead-in segment name (s-in)
2) Be no-name.
Although we still need to test what happens when both the lead in segment and the wayfinder segment are no-name.
Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:54 am
PesachZ wrote:I agree that a stub will fix it, but only if the next segment after the stub is named. If it is needed to be unnamed, we will stool have the problem and an additional issue. Making it a no-name stub followed by a no-name segment might flag and be 'fixed' by any of several scripts. Without editors understanding the need for it, they might think it was unnecessary. Understanding the theory, and putting an alt name on the portion after the stub will prevent the node from being considered extra, and fix detour prevention.
Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:10 am
KB_Steveo wrote:And the drive through lots section, needs to be changed to say 3 segments. (maybe with a picture of that too.)
Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:40 pm