[Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuvers

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:53 pm

I did some more tests, most of which ended up invalidated by the results of my first one.

Results I can confirm so far:

For any type of alt match, or alt <> primary cross match to be considered, there must be at least one alt name on each segment in the matching pair. (S-in and s-out, even for a cross match)

It is possible to have an alt match, even with no primary names.

If both segments have an alt match an additional cross match on one OUT segment will not make it BC.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:49 pm

sketch wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Is there full confirmation from Waze that this is operating as designed? I think this is a bug.

I don't think any GC has yet brought this up in the appropriate forum. I've wanted to, but I don't have time these days to do it justice.

So far I don't believe we heard anything official from Waze yet on this.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:07 am

More test results came in with ottonomy's help;

  • An alt match or cross match works even if s-out didn't have a primary name.
  • There is no preference if a cross match has the primary matched name on s-in or on s-out.
  • A cross match is equal in priority to a primary name match (if one side is a primary match and the other is a cross match, both sides will get an instruction).
  • There must be a primary name on s-in for an alt match to be considered.
  • A type match alone never trumps a name match (tested with a primary, alt, and cross match, on a street type vs a Fwy match to the other side).
    However as tested previously a type+alt match does trump even a primary match.
  • If both OUTs are a primary match (I.e. all three segments have the same primary name), additional alt or cross matches on one side do not create a BC. Both sides get instructions.
  • Preliminary results don't support the theories presented by the Malaysian editor about elevation, MH, or turn angles playing a role here.
More tests should be live tomorrow
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:48 am

PesachZ wrote:...
An alt match or cross match works even if s-out didn't have a primary name.
...
There must be a primary name on s-in for an alt match to be considered.
...

A new test went live today regarding these rules.

However a cross match is BC, even without a primary name on s-in.

So to summarize

A cross match can be considered if;
There is any alt on both segments,
It didn't matter if either of those segments have primary names.

An alt match can be considered only if s-in has a primary name, regardless of if s-out has a primary name.


Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:02 am

I have tabulated the results of all our tests thus far in this Google spreadsheet.

The latest results show that when all 3 segments have the same primary name, an alt match on one side is ignored, but a type match on one side becomes BC. Even if one side is an alt match and the other side of the same split is a type match, the type match will be BC.

I will try to rewrite the flowchart to incorporate all these changes.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:13 am

I've completed a first draft of the new Best Continuation algorithm. This is a draft and should not yet be relied upon, it is provided here for informational purposes only. Feel free to review it and post any questions, and/or comments here. If this turns out to be accurate I will try to get it in a flowchart format in the wiki 'soon' :lol:
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:54 pm

pumrum wrote:Out of curiosity, was anyone able to confirm that this is not a bug? It seems really counter-intuitive to have a properly configured ramp segment not deliver an "exit right" instruction just because the alternate name is the same.

In CT, almost all streets including numbered and signed highways have legal names. Those legal names are the primary name. In order to quickly identify (and maybe some time in the future to provide route shields), the route number was included in the alternate name. This includes ramps, because sometimes it can be very confusing to see where a numbered route deviates from its obvious course.

This ramp is a perfect example. State Route 20 West splits off from Special Route 401, which continues north as a freeway to the airport. Unfortunately, with this latest change, drivers are no longer getting an "exit right" instruction which defies all logic and common sense. There really should be a ramp exclusion from the TTS logic.

I would really like to have some solid confirmation from WazeHQ that this is a permanent change and not subject to discussion before I go through the entire state of connecticut and re-work all of the alternate names we spent so many hours on. I can put quick fixes in as I identify them, but it seems like this is a code issue rather than a map issue.



The closest to an official post is in the thread dedicated to this change.
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Based on the last post I read from Waze a few moments ago, it appears they plan to go forward and not back out this change.


There was a discussion on the topic between champs and Waze in another forum.
This was a month ago, and it doesn't sound like there will be any going back. It seems this was intentional, and it's unfortunate we weren't warned.



Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:29 am

CBenson wrote:
pumrum wrote:This ramp is a perfect example. State Route 20 West splits off from Special Route 401, which continues north as a freeway to the airport. Unfortunately, with this latest change, drivers are no longer getting an "exit right" instruction which defies all logic and common sense. There really should be a ramp exclusion from the TTS logic.


While I agree that I don't understand the intention behind this logic, I'm wondering if there is any disadvantage to giving this segment an alternate name of "State Rte 401 W." Would that not return the TTS to providing an "Exit" instruction for the ramp. I understand that this isn't going to be entirely intuitive for new editors that haven't studied PesachZ's work. But isn't that at least a solution to give the routing and instructions that we want at this point?

The easiest instructions to new editors, when the wrong instructions are being given at a junction and everything is named correct, may be to set up a wayfinder.
Wayfinders stubs should be set without any alternate names.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:51 am

CBenson wrote:
PesachZ wrote:The easiest instructions to new editors, when the wrong instructions are being given at a junction and everything is named correct, may be to set up a wayfinder.
Wayfinders stubs should be set without any alternate names.


Hold that thought. Waze staff is currently trying to convince me that ramp wayfinder stubs adversely affect routing. I'm not convinced yet. This is in connection with the routing issue raised here. The routing team doesn't understand why this segment exists. (So at the very least, the routing algorithms have been developed without contemplating what effects these ramp wayfinder segments may have on routing.)

Well first off Im not sure I'd believe they cause untoward routing effects. More importantly in these instances we only really need half a wayfinder (on the exit side).

Make the first 5 meters of this ramp be a no name segment.
{That will break the name match on the ramp, leaving only the type match for the Fwy. The ramp will get an exit instruction, the Fwy will not. And this won't add the ramp stub the devs, aren't sure if they don't like.}

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

Re: [Page Update] How Waze determines turn/keep/exit maneuve

Postby PesachZ » Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:11 am

pumrum wrote:
PesachZ wrote:Make the first 5 meters of this ramp be a no name segment.


Of course there are probably 1000 ways to solve this particular issue. I'm not sure that breaking the ramp into 2 parts is my favorite, since that would break our numbered route continuity concept at which point I may as well just remove the alt name from the ramp as it exists now and not add extra junctions.

I guess the points I was trying to illustrate was:

1) aren't we supposed to avoid clobbering hacks into the map to circumvent fundamental issues with the software? I know that guidance has been handed down before, but I'm mobile so I can't locate it just now

2) why would you ever, in any circumstance want a ramp as a sole right branch from a continuous highway to NOT give an instruction? It doesn't make any sense to me at all, given my limited but growing knowledge of Waze. If anyone can think of a reason, I'm sure PesachZ (the turn instruction guru) can :)

Short answer: because the best continuation algorithm doesn't differentiate what types of roads are in okay, just if they match, it would have to be written differently to give special handling to ramps. If you just think of it as two road types say a mH and a PS in the same setup, the PS might be the real continuation, and the mH the turn to a new rd given FC. That said, they seem to have no issues making these algorithms overtly complex, so why not add special handling for ramps to boot?

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4464
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC} {ARC}
Has thanked: 1996 times
Been thanked: 2297 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users