KB_Steveo wrote:

PesachZ wrote: Thanks for that info, I'll (hopefully) do some more testing

I found my original CAD file!!! I had a note that the image above gave me numbered exits, so the angle is actually less than 10° (or somewhere close)

That would only be true if the junction in the middle of the roundabout for testing was dead center. It would also break the roundabout by making the segment IDs be not consecutive when you connect the test segments.

Thanks to some enterprising wazers there are now better options. I user this script viewtopic.php?t=87511

PesachZ wrote:

KB_Steveo wrote:

PesachZ wrote: Thanks for that info, I'll (hopefully) do some more testing

I found my original CAD file!!! I had a note that the image above gave me numbered exits, so the angle is actually less than 10° (or somewhere close)

That would only be true if the junction in the middle of the roundabout for testing was dead center. It would also break the roundabout by making the segment IDs be not consecutive when you connect the test segments.

Thanks to some enterprising wazers there are now better options. I user this script viewtopic.php?t=87511

I went back to one of my tests, a 3 segment roundabout. Approaching from the bottom (1) there is a left exit (2) -15° so the angle between the approach and exit is 75°, and a straight exit (3) at +7° (a 7° angle off if 0° to the right).

When I approach from the bottom (1) it is treated as a normal roundabout, turn left (2) is 15° less than 90°, and continue straight (3) is 7° more than 0°.

When I approach from the top (3), it is treated as an abnormal roundabout, the east segment (2) is 2nd exit and has an angles 22° less than 90°, the bottom (1) is 7° more than 0°. This leads me to confirm the threshold is at least ±15°.

kentsmith9 wrote:Abnormal (related to roundabouts) is in the Wiki if someone want to address the three pages and use a link back to this thread as the reason for the change:

• https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/How_Waze_det ... _maneuvers
• https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Roundabouts/USA
• https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Interactive_ ... _algorithm

I'll fix the two technical pages if the roundabout page gets changed. If there's consensus to change the roundabout page, I can do all 3.

kentsmith9 wrote:I propose that we have enough concensus from the people who are following this forum in the first place. We can always undo the change.

All three pages have been fixed.

Kent, can I trouble you to provide updated images for these two files using "non-normal" instead of "abnormal" please?
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/File:Roundabout_3_normal.png
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/File:Roundab ... normal.png

kentsmith9 wrote:Done. For some reason the Wiki show the reduced image with the old data even after I flush my cache, but the fill image is correct.

Thank you.

I've been having the same issue on my PC for a while with this page, but not on my phone.

qwaletee wrote:Those not familiar with the terms of art will be confused, even if it is explained. We can find an alternative phrasing that is "true" without having the secondary connotations.

Perhaps "simple" vs. "complex." Or "right angle" vs. "special configuration." I'm sure we can come up with something.

Hopefully, we do. This was meant as just a Band-Aid until a good choice is made.

Work is taking most of my time this week but if no one else has come up with that CAD drawing by this weekend I will draw up some designs for consideration.

We have been working on the images for a presentation to the community and the drawing board is full of ideas that are in the final tweaks, Fredo-p has helped me with some great roundabout screen shots of both abnormal and normal examples. As much as I would like to share the work to date, I must respect the confidence of the behind the scenes work of tonestertm and ottonomy, but I am sure we are very close to that presentation.
I will however at this time offer my resources and support to anyone else who may want images or sketches converted to CAD for manipulations such as: Geometric alignments, Line attribute adjustment (color, line-weight, etc), Overlay/underlay of images/PDFs, Text, Color fill, etc.
There are many times a sketch has more impact but if precision is necessary please do not hesitate to PM me for my e-mail and then your images/PDFs can be sent and be either partially or entirely manipulated to your wishes.

Those not familiar with the terms of art will be confused, even if it is explained. We can find an alternative phrasing that is "true" without having the secondary connotations.

Perhaps "simple" vs. "complex." Or "right angle" vs. "special configuration." I'm sure we can come up with something.

No, you're oversimplifying the problem. There's a difference between jargon and confusing jargon. BGS isn't easily misconstrued, it is just an unfamiliar abbreviation. "Normal" in its technical usage differs from the non-techies notion of the term, and easily leads to confusion, even if explained briefly at the top. (Especially since some people are likely to read sections coming from a link to the middle.)

I took an opposite position recently on "junction node." To my software engineering self, junctions are a specific type of node. Geometry nodes are another specific type of node. A long time ago, someone decided that it would be less confusing if node always was used specifically for geometry node, and was never used for junction. I don't believe that's confusing, so long as you never use the ambiguous, unadorned "node," and always pair it with its adjective. In that case, we can get both the term of art and an unconfusing usage.

Here, we can't get both.