Post Reply

Lower Mainland mH and MH undividing project

Post by codgerd
Preamble
The Lower Mainland of BC has far fewer controlled access highways than comparable areas in the rest of the country. As such, a large number of our major arteries are divided roads of the mH or MH type (as well as some of primary street types as well), across Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, New West, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, etc. In many instances, the base map import created divided road segments for these. Or, undivided roads were divided by editors early in Waze's existence.

The wiki contains best practice guidelines for when a road should be divided (i.e. split into two one-way segments) and when it should by undivided (i.e. one two-way segment):

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Best_map_edi ... _not_to.29

The criteria are fairly clear, and it is likewise clear that a large number of roads in the Lower Mainland do not follow the guidelines, usually by being divided when they should not be. This frequently adds complexity to routing, can be very ugly and unrealistic in the client app (e.g. bow-tie intersections), and does not promote consistency of mapping or simplicity.

Perhaps more importantly, there are a numerous examples of roads that go from divided to undivided and vice versa various times across their lengths without any adequate reasons. While arguments can usually be made to support either side of an argument for divided vs un-divided, there aren't very many reasons to support arbitrary sections of roads going from divided vs un-divided and vice-versa.

The inappropriateness of at least some of these divided roads is I think fairly conclusive - the question is whether it is worth the effort to start fixing them.

Request for comments
I'd like to gauge the level of interest by the local editing community in fixing some of these roads. A simple example that has been discussed recently is here:

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 901&zoom=6

In this example neither Gaglardi Way nor Broadway meet the criteria necessary for dividing according to the wiki, and the fact that both are divided adds needless complexity to the intersection between them. Do we have the appetite to un-divide these roads? Or is this a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'? The wiki also advises that, once a road is divided, even if the divide is not justified, sometimes you can introduce more problems than you solve by un-dividing. For starters, there may be some loss of traffic data involved.

If there is indeed appetite, I'd propose we could use this thread to document the various candidates, discuss the appropriateness of taking any action, and assign an editor to do the required edits, if any. I'm sure one of our Canadian champs would be happy to benevolently watch over the process and mentor as needed, as well as offering their opinions as well as to whether this is something worthwhile doing or not.

Kayos_On_The_Road has probably done more undividing in the Lower Mainland than any other local editor (by a quick search of the unlock forum, at least) and I think his opinion would carry some weight in this regard.

A couple of recent Canada unlock forum threads where undividing various roads has been discussed and/or performed (there are many others):

viewtopic.php?f=358&t=152092
viewtopic.php?f=358&t=152574
viewtopic.php?f=358&t=142175

Cheers
codgerd (Dave)

EDIT: terminology changed from 'split' and 'unsplit' to 'divided' and 'un-divided' as per Waze glossary
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times

POSTER_ID:17026273

1

Send a message
Last edited by codgerd on Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by BryceCampbell
Whats the current state on the Lower Mainland un-dividing project(s)?
BryceCampbell
Posts: 2704
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 1205 times
Been thanked: 658 times
Send a message

Post by codgerd
Canadian champ manoeuvre points out rightly that the terms 'split' and 'unsplit' have been deprecated in the Waze glossary, as 'split' has other usages and the terminology is therefore non-specific.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Glossary#Split

As such, I've changed the terminology in my initial post, and suggest we try to follow the manoeuvre's recommendation to bring our terminology in line with the greater waze community's by referring to 'divided' and 'un-divided' roads. Not sure if the thread title can be changed (have PMed the moderator) or not; if not, we'll have to live with it.

EDIT: thread title changed - thanks Unholy!
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by codgerd
(although I agree the word split/unplit is deprecated, it was a lot more satisfying to say than 'undivide'.... :cry: undivide candidate? undivision candidate? reunificiation candidate? :roll: )

I propose that the editor who first suggests a a candidate should be the one to either undertake or divide up the work once it's been given the green light, as long as everyone agrees this is fair. So, if nobody has objections, I'll take care of this one. I think for the first few candidates it'll be useful to be more explicit about the details, so apologies for the length of this. Once we get rolling, I don't think we'll need extensive justification, just a go-ahead from other editors to establish consensus.

This candidate can serve as a proof-of-concept, as it consists of relatively short lengths of Gaglardi Way from Lougheed Hwy to short of University Dr as well as Broadway from Gaglardi Way to Como Lake Ave.

Rationale for undividing this was originally discussed in this unlock thread:
viewtopic.php?f=358&t=152574

This is a pretty easy and straight-forward set of segments to undivide. Attention to be paid to AGCs needed for early TTS due to long turn lanes as outlined in the thread linked above. The main one to preserve is the WB left turn onto Broadway from Gaglardi, because of the very early solid line start to the turn lanes. Currently, the TTS for this AGC would give a 'turn left' where the lane division starts and then no instruction at all at the actual turn. I think a 'keep left' or 'keep right' where the lanes divide would be more appropriate, followed by a 'turn left' at the actual intersection for Broadway bound wazers.

The need for the other two AGCs is dubious, in my opinion and hinges on whether early TTS is required or not. I'd welcome input from other editors.

Other than that, the undivision would remove a lot of un-needed complexity. The short 5.0m segment where Como Lake Ave turns into Broadway (at North Rd) will still be needed because of the signage here.

The recommended procedure for unsplitting is documented here in the wiki and this will be the method employed for all undivide projects undertaken here.

The recommended procedure is so-defined, as far as I understand, to preserve house number data. Whether this procedure preserves traffic data is something I've not been able to determine from the wiki or from searching the forums; I suspect traffic data will be lost in the process, but I have not seen an authoritative source state it one way or the other.

As this is the test case, I'm going to document segment travel times on all of these segments prior to undividing, and then again once the tiles go live to see what is lost in the process. I'll post results here.

To proceed, the following would need unlocking:
Permalink

Once everyone has had the opportunity to comment and are agreed as to proceeding, I'll add a request to the unlock forum with a link to this post - probably the easiest way of dealing with the unlocks as I don't expect the CMs to monitor this thread as much as the unlock forum.
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by codgerd
Rampage_Rick wrote:I'd be interested in helping out, though my allowed area only extends as far as the Port Mann for the moment. I'm still learning the ins and outs, but I have been reading up on the minutiae of undividing roads (which is what brought me here) This all came about after my recent trip along Hwy 3 and the massive realignment in progress outside Princeton. My interpretation of the guidelines says Hwy 3 shouldn't be divided through Manning Park (though I have no way of editing there due to the lack of cellular coverage)
Hi Rampage_Rick

Welcome to Waze editing!

Hwy 3 in Manning Park is outside of my editing area too and outside of the scope of the Lower Mainland project as I conceived it, although I think you're probably correct about it being needlessly divided. Krazywrath is an area manager for the Princeton area, and may be better placed to comment on it and on the realignment of Hwy 3. For areas that do not have cell coverage, only Area Managers who are assigned to that area will be able to edit the map there. Once you have some solid editing experience in your own home area, you can apply to be an Area Manager in an area like Princeton (EDIT: Once you hit Rank 2 (1000 edits) you can apply for an AM role).

For what it's worth, Hwy 3 has other serious issues as well: completely uneven lock levels (e.g. here, where one direction is locked to L5, and the other is at A1. The same segments have elevation levels of 1 and 5, respectively; I wonder whether the last editor to touch this meant to lock to L5 but instead set the elevation to 5 by mistake... Both elevations and lock levels are wonky throughout the park and need attention.

I also agree that Hwy 3 does not benefit from being divided here, at least, from what I could see quickly scanning the area. I would suggest this may be something for Krazy to look at if he has the interest, and if you're keen to get involved, perhaps you could get in touch with him and see how you could assist. Undividing can be a bit tricky to get right, and as a new editor, I'd encourage you to get as much general editing experience as you can before you attempt it.

Cheers!
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by codgerd
Kayos_On_The_Road wrote:The AGC which is going to be odd is SB Gaglardi to continue on Gaglardi, as typically an AGC is used for turns, not BCs. Perhaps this can be a scheduled edit so those that are interested in participating and having input can make arrangements to be available.
I think the simplest setup here is something like:


This way you'd get an early keep left to be in the correct lanes, then you'd get a turn left at Broadway (that junction to have appropriate turn restrictions). Traffic from Broadway onto EB Gaglardi would just get a turn right at the main intersection.

I think the AGC shown on this doodle is the only one needed here. The two other current AGCs here are quite short and do not require early TTS. (If you did need one for EB Gaglardi from Broadway, you could always junction it through the AGC with all turns off except for BC and onto the main Gaglardi segment.)

What do you reckon?
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by codgerd
As long as the short connector were > 5 m, there wouldn't be a problem from a routing perspective. But connecting both the AGC and the BC segment through a single node makes for a simpler setup. You'd have to restrict the continuation onto Gaglardi from the AGC obviously. Your solution is simpler and involves fewer segments, so I like it, but the intent might not be as obvious as if the AGC connected separately to Broadway. In the client app my solution might look a little less bow-tie looking if you know what I mean. Not sure which one I prefer to be honest.
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by codgerd
Fair enough - you convinced me. We'll go with your solution.
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by codgerd
I agree with Kayos though that this is easily managed via actively requesting Area Management. Definitely easier than crossing fingers that Waze devs will change the cache size or behaviour of the app. Rampage_Rick, I'd suggest you ask for AM status for the areas you regularly drive but where you don't have cell service. You can then work, under the supervision of a Canadian champ like hmarian, manoeuvre, or doctorkb, at fixing some of the issues you've brought up. Things like the realignment of Hwy 3 definitely need fixing, if it's not already done.

You can find the thread where doctorkb introduces the AM concept and provides the links to the request form here:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=93406

Cheers
codgerd
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC

Post by codgerd
A real simple one, stumbled across it while fixing a UR nearby. The road is divided from Lougheed north a few blocks. No reason to have this divided.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-122.93671&lat=49.25636&layers=389&zoom=5&segments=59560789,59423473,59452981,59443720,59461681,59606753,59468193,59468004
codgerd
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 553
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Send a message
[img]https:///ESnp3j[/img]
AM Greater Vancouver, BC
AM Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, QC