[Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:41 pm

PesachZ wrote:
sketch wrote:Don't know how I missed that. Done.

Im still seeing it incorrect in my browser here
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Style_Guide/Interchanges#Freeway_split_geometry wrote:...
3. The two exiting segments must have departure angles of 20 to 30 degrees from the entering segment

Fixed. Let me know if there's anything else. I'm busy with other stuff so I'm doing these changes quickly and as they're brought to my attention.

The wayfinder revision looks great.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:52 pm

OK – the last two posts are talking about two similar but related things, which I will nonetheless address separately.

CBenson wrote:
jemay wrote:The 'to' to be removed, what about if it is on the BGS? I have seen "to i-##"

Are you sure? I've seen BGS that say "to I-##" at say freeway splits. But I've not seen it in the circumstance that we are defining as a wayfinder, that is where there is an exit, but we also want to give a user an instruction directing them how to continue on the road that the user is already on.

Actually yeah, I've seen something like this. Near the end of I-471 in Cincinnati, there are a couple wayfinders signed for I-71 N, because that's where continuing eventually brings you. It's still a "wayfinder" by construction since you're still on 471 for a time, but it's not signed for 471. (That one doesn't actually say "TO" but it's the same idea.) This construction is typical where you're still on the same road but the sign on the wayfinder is for a different road, often near the end of a particular freeway. "to" is appropriate in those situations.

KB_Steveo wrote:
jemay wrote:The 'to' to be removed, what about if it is on the BGS? I have seen "to i-##"

What I do is put the (to I-xx) in parenthesis at the end of the exit.

Sign PL. In this case, the ramp is named "to I-43 S / Milwaukee (to State Hwy 29 E)" since the ramp takes you to I-43, then the road you exited on to (I-43) takes you to State Hwy 29, which is extra information that the DOT deems as applicable info, hence the parenthesis.

Unless I missed something and the ramp (or wayfinder) that you're thinking of doesn't have primary info on it (to I-43 / Milwaukee, in my example)

I actually quite like that construction. It's not technically wiki-supported but it's one that I've used before. Anything that actually says "TO" on the sign, I relegate to the end (I just do it after another slash, but the parentheses are a nice idea).

This way, I don't lose clarity on an unnumbered exit signed "TO US-61 / Cleary Ave" (the exit is directly onto Cleary; Cleary takes you to 61). By naming it "to Cleary Ave / to US-61" Waze properly says "Exit right to Cleary Avenue, to US-61", which is what you are indeed actually doing. "to Cleary Ave (to US-61) might be even clearer, I dunno.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Oh, also, I'm not crazy about the "2 dropped lanes on the expected side" rule, exactly—what of the situations with 1 continuing lane, 1 option lane, and 1 dropped lane? The "only 1 lane continues" rule doesn't really apply unless we explicitly exclude option lanes from that count.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:40 pm

jondrush wrote:I don't like parenthetical statements on ramp names. To me, anything in parenthesis is optional and should be dropped for simplicity. You need to make the call, is it critical info and should be there as another data point, or is it not critical and should be dropped.

I pass a under a sign that says "to I-276" every day on my commute. But I-276 is 30 miles away, so I deemed it non-critical and dropped it from the ramp name.

It depends on the situation. In your case, yeah, leave it off. But for the unnumbered exit I mentioned, you only traverse a couple hundred feet of Cleary before getting to US-61, and the "TO [US-61 shield]" is prominent on the sign, so it's worth including in the instructions. It also depends on how long the name would be, so if something is like "I-32 E / I-43 N / to I-226 / Cooltown/ Chillville", sure, leave the "to I-226" off. But on an onramp with a WEST I-610 shield and a TO I-10 shield, "to I-610 W / to I-10" is perfectly fine and useful information.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:47 pm

I want to incorporate davielde's median U-turn intersection, restricted crossing U-turn, and displaced left turn pages into the Wiki. This will require some level of inclusion in the JSG/Intersections page. They will be placed in a subsection of "split road intersections" following "four way" called something like "Special configurations".

The MUTI page is pretty long; the others somewhat less so. My question is – should we just throw the content in there, at the risk of the page becoming very long? Or do we create an MUTI page, an RCUT page, and a DLT page (and a Jughandle page), and link to them from summaries in the main article? I'm currently leaning toward the latter, to keep the size of the Intersections subpage down somewhat. If we do that, do we use the structure "JSG/Intersections/MUTI" etc., or do we just leave them on their own page (e.g., "MUTI")? The former is more in line with the Guide, but it gets a little cumbersome.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:07 am

DwarfLord wrote:How about this (already applied; as before, feel free to revert or modify as desired):
Other conditions exist that may suggest a split rather than an exit (use your better judgement, and discretion) -- for example:
  • The physical roadway itself forks or diverges with no clear straight-ahead direction;
  • Signage and striping do not clearly provide all expected "exit" indications, or do so inconsistently; or
  • Signs are present with arrows pointing left and right but no sign clearly establishes the continuation.

I like this. But, do keep it at the end of the list. There's a reason we take so much time writing a well-defined standard for wayfinders.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:04 pm

Good catch. I think that guidance should be reversed. Let detour prevention do its job. Enabling the thru movement allows people who mistakenly get off to be told to get back on again, and perhaps more importantly allows for closures on freeway segments with detours that use interchange ramps—which is common—without having to wait for a tile update to enable that movement.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:42 pm

PesachZ wrote:The segment before the off ramp, and the segment after on ramp (the last and first segments of the highway on either side of the detour) must have IDENTICAL names. This means exact spelling including cardinals, spaces, etc., AND city names.

The thru segments between the ramps must also have identical names. To prevent a detour, there must be a non-detour.

A lone segment is not considered a detour—has to be two or more. Where this would actually apply (given an otherwise properly edited map) I don't really know.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:16 pm

I do still want to add images, but for the currently-listed examples instead. Hence, I left the box, though I should've changed its contents.

PhantomSoul wrote:So just to clarify, we are no longer doing wayfinders for single lane drops on the right side where the approaching signs clearly indicate the right lane is for exit only unless the continuation path has more of an apparent curve than the exit path?

Right, and we still use them where there are 3 travel lanes before the exit, one lane continues, one lane is dropped, and the lane between them is an "option" lane, which can do either. This is under the second rule:
The continuation path on a controlled-access highway or freeway has the same amount or fewer lanes as the exit path after the split;
In the future, I want to clarify and adopt some terminology which will make that clearer, but I haven't yet had time to do that.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby sketch » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:59 pm

To me, this is perhaps one of those "where signage indicates" situations or something like that. You're choosing which way to go on I-5...

But in this particular situation, I could go either way. You are, after all, staying on SR-99 S, and it is the "natural" continuation of the road – not just because of the lane configuration, but also on a more general scale, you're still going southbound. That said, you're entering a different road, and I think that is one criterion that sways in favor of a wayfinder. I generally agree with CBenson – err on the side of too much. But here, it is the obvious continuation and you are staying on 99. So, I dunno, judgment call. Maybe ask jemay his reasons.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6469
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane, États-Unis
Has thanked: 2118 times
Been thanked: 2578 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users