Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:32 pm
sketch wrote:I think Otto was going to conduct some further tests to see the implications as relate to type-based best continuations as well. We've seen some evidence that the combination of type and alt-name continuity might override primary-name-only continuity.
Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:32 pm
sketch wrote:PesachZ wrote:From what we've proven so far Tentatively we can say the algorithm looks for a match in order of preference, 1) alt name* + type
2) primary name
3) alt name*
*alts are only considered if s-in has an alt name.
It has yet to be determined the priory of a primary <> alt cross match, though its likely higher than type, and lower than primary. This is being tested now.
I'm also testing; if there's a preference when cross matching of the primary name being matched is on s-in or s-out. If s-out must have an alt name for a cross match to occur.
Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
"Primary + type" is higher still than "alt + type", though. So maybe 2 should be rephrased as "primary name but not type" and 3 likewise "alt name but not type" (because alt name + type is encompassed by 1), and "primary + type" added at "0", just for now. Right now, it reads like alt + type is higher than a primary + type match, which we know not to be true because of the same-type testing you've already done.
Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:53 pm
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.
Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:07 am
Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:48 am
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.
Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:02 am
Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:13 am
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.
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.
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?