No through traffic

Moderator: Unholy

Re: No through traffic

Postby CBenson » 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.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby vectorspace » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:30 pm

Who would have thought "simple" traffic routing would be so complicated?

I think the turn restriction from the off-ramp discussion is likely one of the most complicated instances of this topic we have and that I can think of. Trying to restrict routing to an internal destination (private area) from only one direction but not others?

Perhaps we make this too complicated. The sign says NO THROUGH TRAFFIC, so it doesn't matter from which direction the traffic is coming. The sign is still there. So, I think we could dismiss the idea that only traffic from the off-ramp is restricted (because of the extended curb area). Does anyone disagree?

If we step back from this, I think there are some simple cases that can be made on this topic in the wiki. For instance, if a single road segment is for local-only traffic and there are signs on both sides of that road, then the solution is easy -- just make that road segment "private."

As Driving79 points out, making a whole neighborhood private causes some routing issues out of the neighborhood... I didn't even know that and now smile because that means the Private Installations page should be updated with this knowledge and bias against that practice should be added. I will discuss with her and Eric.

I think Qualete and Driving79's comments on using closely spaced two-way segments, one being private, is also a really good solution to cause the penalty in one direction. As long as the no-through-area is small, this solution should work to discourage no through traffic from entering only in that direction. As the no-through-area becomes larger, then it starts looking like a private installation and all entries to that neighborhood would have to be treated that way.

I have had experience with turn restrictions serving this very function because the no-through traffic issues are usually related to morning or evening traffic or in a couple cases I saw, with the arrival or dismissal times of students at a school. In these cases the turn restrictions are usually labeled and we can just treat them directly in that way.

Does anyone have other examples of no through traffic area types that would not be covered by these?
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:41 pm

vectorspace wrote:The sign says NO THROUGH TRAFFIC, so it doesn't matter from which direction the traffic is coming. The sign is still there. So, I think we could dismiss the idea that only traffic from the off-ramp is restricted (because of the extended curb area). Does anyone disagree?


Well, what I was trying to point out in the last post I had with the screenshot was that the sign is in the direction of the off-ramp. If we go by how sings are displayed, we know that the direction of the sign is were the intended instruction is meant for. Since there is no other "No thru traffic" sings facing the other directions, it's safe to assume that it's meant for the off-ramp traffic so they don't go packing through the narrow opening.

As for the extended curb, I mentioned it before. IMO, I believe the curb is extended due to the fact that the road allows for curb/street parking. What was developed was a "bubble" curb to protect the parked cars from traffic coming in. This also indicates how restrictive the community is for traffic if they went as far as having the curb bulge out that far.

In regards to the curb and how narrow the opening is to this street, I don't think it plays any part in figuring out what to do, as it's just a effect from the design. I can say that is one hell of a right turn if your traveling south.
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 639 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:51 pm

I tried to explain this before, but I wasn't going to type it all out on my phone. Now that I'm on my laptop, this is something that I would like to know if it can be done.

Is it possible to have the navigation and penalty algorithm include codes that checks the destination address location for road types?

What I mean by this is, for example, using this ramp discussion, a user wants to go to destination A. Destination A is on the other side of the community. Having the road segment set to private would penalize it and cause Waze to an alternate route.

Now, say User#2 want's to go to destination #2. Waze recognizes the fact that the destination address in in the middle or near the road that is marked private. However, it knows that the segment is private but the segments afterwards are streets, so it would route through the private and make for a quicker route.

In order to have this "permitted" routing, a separate/special/or sub-classification would be needed. Maybe "Private-Residential"? This road type could be given to all the "no thru-traffic" communities so if an address is selected that isn't within this segment area, Waze routes around it. But, if the address is in the area of the "Private-Residential" road type, it will route using this road type.

I hope I'm explaining it correctly. My ADHD meds are wearing off and my mind is going faster than I can type. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe a new or sub road category is needed. I know I read somewhere that there is a possibility that sub-categories may be coming in the not so distant future so maybe this could be included in it?
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 639 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby tonestertm » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:56 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? I don't think they really want tons of people turning right from Sawtelle that don't live in there either, I get it's not clearly posted from that direction. If you only do the TR from the ramp, then waze may do funky routes from the ramp to get them to turn right onto Sawtelle, uturn using other streets nearby and then turn right onto it (because it would still be faster). Not ideal.

Basically, what CBenson said about the one Private segment doing the same thing as a TR. It's pretty clear to those of us who live here and have driven that area, that the amount of traffic turning from Sawtelle to Matteson was never a problem. It's the HUGE number of people getting off the freeway there, and looking for a way to avoid going to Venice and Washington Place to go westward. This freeway, the 405, is literally known as the busiest in the country. (and if you don't believe Wikipedia, just type "busiest freeway in US" into any search engine.)

It's not just "not clearly posted" it's just NOT posted. If traffic were going to be restricted from Sawtelle, the City would definitely have let us know about it.

This offramp has been set exactly as it is right now for about a year, and this is the first "complaint" I've seen. And I'd be at least somewhat surprised if the person who asked for the unlock actually lives in that city block (I've asked, haven't heard back yet). The very few Wazers who might live in that city block can learn to ignore the instruction, and probably already have, since they know about the "No Thru Traffic" sign.

Believe me, funky routes like that are never going to be faster there unless it's the wee hours of the AM. Venice, Sawtelle and Washington Place are all very busy roads during the day. Again, first complaint I've seen in a year, and the unlock request appears to have been in error.

vectorspace wrote:The sign says NO THROUGH TRAFFIC, so it doesn't matter from which direction the traffic is coming. The sign is still there. So, I think we could dismiss the idea that only traffic from the off-ramp is restricted (because of the extended curb area). Does anyone disagree?
YES. If the through traffic were meant to be restricted from Sawtelle there WOULD be signage posted, facing north and south, not just one sign you can't actually read until you're in the middle of the turn. Culver City is not shy about that. As I stated previously in this thread, the curb would be squared, not rounded, and there would not be a left turn signal. It's just not the intention. (edit note: I'd originally posted LA, then changed it to Culver City, then back to LA: this is right at the border of Culver City. 2nd edit: Finally checked a trusted map, had it backward, this is CC)

Plus, making a whole city block Private restricts a lot of crucial Waze routing. Where's the Smart in that?

Bottom line in this case, trying to provide for the very few people who might need to be routed into that area from that offramp does not outweigh the harm imposed on at least tens, if not hundreds of trips through that area each day. I guarantee if that city block is all set to Private, there will be at least an order of magnitude more Map Issues to deal with.
Last edited by tonestertm on Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
tonestertm
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:02 pm
Location: City of...um, Angels, CA, USA
Has thanked: 520 times
Been thanked: 892 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:55 pm

Yay, I found one in Arizona. How about this one:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=7&lat=33.53723&lon=-112.44868&layers=1925&env=usa
private road Waddell_AZ.jpg
(70.83 KiB) Downloaded 509 times
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 639 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:09 am

After checking Google Street View, I have noticed that nearly every road south of this location is sporting the "Private Road" sings. So how would this be addressed?
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 639 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby vectorspace » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:42 am

Fredo-p wrote:
vectorspace wrote:The sign says NO THROUGH TRAFFIC, so it doesn't matter from which direction the traffic is coming. The sign is still there. So, I think we could dismiss the idea that only traffic from the off-ramp is restricted (because of the extended curb area). Does anyone disagree?


Well, what I was trying to point out in the last post I had with the screenshot was that the sign is in the direction of the off-ramp. If we go by how sings are displayed, we know that the direction of the sign is were the intended instruction is meant for. Since there is no other "No thru traffic" sings facing the other directions, it's safe to assume that it's meant for the off-ramp traffic so they don't go packing through the narrow opening. ...


tonestertm wrote: ... YES. If the through traffic were meant to be restricted from Sawtelle there WOULD be signage posted, facing north and south, not just one sign you can't actually read until you're in the middle of the turn.


Oh, OK, my misunderstanding. I had the impression the sign was faced to read as you were going into the street... That makes sense.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:50 am

......Litchfield Park, AZ is littered/loaded with open access roads that are considered "Private Roads" as per the sings displayed all over the place via Google Street View. While going over some Validator issues, I discovered that a good portion of these areas have almost all of the roads set to PR. So this is going to be a pain. Going to post in the Arizona G+ page to inform them and ask for help.
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 639 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby vectorspace » Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:52 am

Fredo-p wrote:I tried to explain this before, but I wasn't going to type it all out on my phone. Now that I'm on my laptop, this is something that I would like to know if it can be done.

Is it possible to have the navigation and penalty algorithm include codes that checks the destination address location for road types?

What I mean by this is, for example, using this ramp discussion, a user wants to go to destination A. Destination A is on the other side of the community. Having the road segment set to private would penalize it and cause Waze to an alternate route. ...


I believe I understand what you're saying, but my quick answers are (a) that it doesn't matter, and (b) that Waze programmers can do just about whatever they want with the algorithm -- we have ability to influence but only if it has a significant impact.

I don't think it matters because Waze will consider a number of routes (in some way optimal for paths and computational time). Typically this is the A* algorithm, described here. All of those paths will have penalties associated with the entire path including the destination limitations that we're talking about here. To adjust the algorithm in the way you describe is probably non-optimal for the general case.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users