Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: No through traffic

Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:20 pm

I have always thought they should be treated the same. I think the definition of smaller installation should include areas where through traffic is prohibited. I don't see why the private installation or community definition can't state:
"The smallest example may be a single private community street protected by a gate or 'No Thru Traffic' sign."

Re: No through traffic

Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:44 pm

driving79 wrote:So what if I'm coming off the ramp and going straight because I live there? Wouldn't a TR stop that?

So would the single private road segment. I'm not sure using one private road segment achieves much. Ins't the only differences between using a single private road segment and using turn restrictions the suppression of map problems. We could use turn restrictions instead of private road segments when we apply the large private installation method and have the same effect on routing. The difference being the lack of map problems and that the display of private road segments makes it easier to check that the restrictions are properly placed than if the restrictions are turn restrictions.

Re: No through traffic

Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:16 am

Why the parking lot roads?

Re: No through traffic

Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:50 pm

driving79 wrote:We have tons and tons of these in Florida, especially Orlando or the nicer areas, where entire neighborhoods which would be great to cut through, are not allowed. If you mark all the streets inside these as all private, it does not route you back out of it correctly. The only way we have had 100% success is with the private in, street out.

Fredo-p wrote:Sorry, its not a gated community but a gated complex/condos. Those are all parking spots and don't have named roads. So I was under the impression that they would labeled as PLR's.

I don't know all the problems that might arise routing from entire areas of private road segment, but those that I'm aware of apply equally to areas of parking lot segments. Waze is designed to not route through parking lots in the same way it is designed to not route through private areas. If an area is mapped with parking lot segments, then I don't think anything else should be done to prevent through routing.

Re: No through traffic

Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:44 pm

Since the change to the current operation where the penalty is applied to the transition from (it is from right? I get this backwards all the time) a private road or parking lot segment to another segment, I have not seen any internal routing issues.

Regarding routing from an area of parking lot segments, I am aware of two issues. First if there are two adjacent areas that should not be routed through and they are separated only by a single street then they may connect at the junctions on the street. In that case no penalty is applied going from one to the other. For instance if routing from Jennifer Rd to Bestgate Rd here, waze doesn't route through the mall roads. However, if you route from the parking lot across Jennifer Rd, waze will route through the mall. This is because you are already on parking lot roads and there is no transition crossing Jennifer Rd to another road type, so the exit penalty is the same to exit the parking lot roads at Jennifer or at Bestgate. This can be solved by adding short street stubs at the entrances, which essentially is what you do if you split the road and have a private road segment entering and a street segment exiting. Such methods force the transition penalty to be applied when passing from one adjacent no through routing area to another.

The second issue is that waze doesn't apply the penalty to exit a parking lot road segment to the segment that you start on. Thus, if the starting segment connects to a non-parking lot segment and there is a route to the destination through that non-parking lot segment, then waze will take that route even if there is a faster route exiting the parking lot at some other segment. Thus, if you start on an entrance road that connects to Jennifer Rd and route to Bestgate, waze will route you around the parking lot rather than through the parking lot.

I have not personally seen these issues with areas of private road segments, but am guessing that the same issues exist with private road segments.

Re: No through traffic

Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:56 pm

I don't know if you are reacting specifically to my routes in the post above or not. But if so be aware that waze has routed like this since at least last November.

Re: No through traffic

Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:21 pm

HavanaDay wrote:@CBenson. This is what I know and have seen. If you mark the roads in a bigger neighborhood with just private roads at the entrances it will not route you out at the most efficient manner.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that when routing out of an area that complies with the alternate treatment for larger installations you sometimes get inefficient routes. If so, I haven't come across the issue. But if the split road method works and the single segment method doesn't, maybe we should eliminate the alternative from the wiki.

HavanaDay wrote:Now if all the roads are private in the neighborhood there seems to be some issues with still allowing routing to go through there even if it isn't your destination.
I have also not come across this issue - at least not where private roads at the entrances (or split roads with one direction private) worked. I was under the impression that the private road penalty was designed to prevent routing through a neighborhood where all the roads are private. If this isn't working we really need to revisit the basic operation of private roads, don't we?

HavanaDay wrote:Regarding using parking lot roads (not specific to the case above) but isn't that hacking the map?
I'm not suggestion to use parking lot roads for private installations (or areas prohibited to through traffic by signs if we are treating them differently). I'm just saying that the through routing penalties are similar for areas of parking lot roads and areas of private road segments. So if something is already considered a parking lot and mapped with parking lot roads, then there is no reason to do anything else to prevent through routing.

HavanaDay wrote:Has your opinion changed after posting in this thread, Or do you consider it two seperate matters?
I haven't formed an opinion on that matter yet. Still waiting for a tile update so we can see if there are any differences between putting the private road segments on the entrances or the exits of a private installation with split roads at the gates.

Re: No through traffic

Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:28 am

No through traffic signs are inherently vague.
kentsmith9 wrote:The sign is at the entrance of the street meant for everyone entering the street. If only the ramp was subject to the sign, it would have been moved to the final few feet of the ramp where ONLY the ramp traffic would see the sign.

I disagree, if the sign were on the final few feet of the ramp, you would have people arguing that the turns onto Sawtelle are included and the entire exit is only for local traffic.

Re: No through traffic

Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:58 pm

I agree with sketch. I addition to waze getting better at turning drivers around, there is the issue of obtaining good speed data for these little used roads in areas that may have bad GPS reception, bad network reception or both. In this case both Morrell and Morrill have SV images. Stepping through the SV can show if they were dirt roads when the SV car passed through. Stepping through can also show significant deviations between the SV reported location and the position of the road on the waze map. I don't know if these deviations impede the gathering of speed data for these roads.

Re: No through traffic

Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:51 pm

qwaletee wrote:I'm afraid I still don't understand why Waze is doing this. From what we know, the private road penalty occurs at the transition to public road. In Gazzo4U's example, whether you go south and turn onto Hickory or go north and turn onto Square Lake, there is no penalty until you reach one of those two roads, and then there should be an equal penalty turning onto either them.... in which case, the penalty is a common factor, and won't affect the relative outcomes of the two routes, and it should choose the true shorter or faster route.

As far I can tell waze sees no transition from a private road to a public road in Gazzo4U's example when going south and turning onto Hickory. This seems to be because the route never passes over a junction onto a private road segment. Waze thus never realizes that the route is on a private road.

If I understand sketch correctly he is simply proposing to add another junction rear the actual exit so that the route would pass over a junction onto a short private road segment and thus the penalty would be applied when leaving that short segment.
Post a reply