I have read through this thread and it seems that there is some consensus between most editors with a vocal opponent.

I understand both sides of the debate. I would like to see an option within the map editor to impose a penalty on these streets for through traffic but disagree with completely blocking these streets (which private roads would do). This functionality currently does not exist.

Waze directs a user from their departure point to a destination. The purpose is to find the fastest route possible for the user based on current and historical traffic patterns. Logic would state that outside of peak hour, the main roads will be the fastest route as they are designed to carry more traffic.

The issue would arise during peak hour (either AM/PM during the week or localised around shopping centres etc. on weekends). This is when the routing server is likely to push traffic on to local roads. One thing to keep in mind is that these local roads are not designed to carry the same amount of traffic and will in turn become congested themselves. This will push traffic back on to the main road. If the turns in and out of the local traffic areas have traffic control devices that do not preference them, then the main road should remain the best option for most through traffic (think of traffic lights preference the main road, with very short green time for side streets). In theory, a properly designed main road system will result in it being chosen above the local traffic areas by the routing server.

If the road system worked well enough, we could rely on the faster routes from the main roads to be chosen by the routing server each time. Unfortunately the road system does not work as well as we'd like as we get congestion.

The solution for private roads on to local traffic area roads would work for eliminating all through traffic but would cause other issues that have not been given a suitable solution.

Issue 1: Detouring through area for unexpected events
We cannot rely on road closed signs and detour signs being erected in every adverse road blocking event. There are those users who will come across the blockage before the emergency services or council respond. There will be those where there are inadequate resources to cover all closures in a large event. There will be those where the only detour may be through a 'local traffic area'.
I first found Waze when I had to detour on the way to work due to a fatal accident. The police had barely shown up and not had time to set up detours. This can often take some time. By entering the road closure in the app, it can then direct around the detour. This may be through a local traffic area if it is the quickest route. In the event of a road closure for an adverse event, I believe that a local traffic area should be considered.

Issue 2: Users who may require the fastest route regardless of the residents wishes.
I have used Waze whilst driving an emergency vehicle to an emergency before. Not often, but there are roads I have mapped that are not on Google Maps and not on the Garmin GPS. The roads that are mapped are also more accurate and less likely to send me down non-existent roads.
I am not sure if I am the only one who has used Waze to navigate in an emergency situation however if there are others, than the fastest possible routing is essential. Whilst we know the fastest usual routes in our local areas, we do respond outside of our local areas as the need arises.

Issue 3: Inability to route through a 'legal route'
This has been highlighted however I do not personally see it as too big of an issue. It is a limitation. This brings us back to utilitarian theory. Will more harm be done to locals on these roads through Waze directing traffic down them or will more harm be done by Waze directing people around these roads. One could say that the councils have already answered this question by placing the signs on the roads. The other argument is whether council have made a reasonable determination or whether they have surrendered to a few vocal locals in placing the signs in a particular area.


Unfortunately I do not believe that everyone will settle on an agreement either way. My vote is to leave them ungated and let the routing server decide based on traffic data.

Has anyone considered the use of narrow street road type? It imposes a penalty (5-10min) on through traffic without blocking it. New roads with no data would start at 10kph until data is gathered. My proposal is for the whole local traffic area to be narrow street (not just boundary roads) so that the penalty is only posed once.
This would impose the requisite penalty without blocking through traffic (hence limited through traffic).

Thoughts?

I'd like to see the Narrow Street option explored. It is a known quantity in imposing a penalty on routing. There was mention earlier in the thread where private roads can provide a viable path around a closure yet the routing server will still route hours around.

I'm hopeful the Narrow Street type can provide the intention of the signs by not routing through traffic through a local traffic area except for the exceptional traffic circumstances apply. I could be wrong but I highly doubt a local traffic area would provide a 5-10 minute advantage to compensate for the penalty in normal congestion.

I kind of view it as a hopeful compromise.

Ok, so all of this has started again because 1 editor want to implement controls that the app was not designed for.

Honestly Wazers, we have trashed this out already, we had a consensus(if only at State level), and now someone who like to implement their own interpretation, has ended up hamstringing the app and the editors...again. And it also seems the 'supporter of lost causes' is still feeling resentment at our ability to reach our own conclusions up here.


Think the U-Turn in South Brisbane, one editor decided it was wrong, changed it and created a huge effort to get it back to what was correct.

How this was left to get to so many pages again, well, leadership, lack thereof, and a willingness to support 'unsupported' positions, to the detriment of the greater editor community.

funwayz wrote:Glomp has said a lot of things in the past that were thought to be official guidance, but it ended up being his personal opinion on how things should work. This was regardless of whether it had been discussed with other people or not. From what you're describing from LakeyBoy, it is personal opinion yet again.

This is not a matter of pulling rank either. That's not how discussion works. We are a community after all.

But you do not listen to the community, in the same way that GroovyKyle was left to just run amok, then AM were forced to fight for the return to normal.

funwayz wrote: I have trialled setting all of the streets .

Well, TRIALLING is clearly showing that this is not normal, and you are Trialling this experiment is our state capital.



Just wrong, against state guidance, if you had asked.

inflexionEstrian wrote:

theclem54 wrote:I would like to see some actual hard evidence of Waze producing problem routes for so called rat runners before we take drastic measures of implementing our own traffic management solutions beyond that intended by the local government.

This is something I agree with, however it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction policy that "no one should do it". For now, and until there is a proven problem, this kind of gating should not be used unless we're creating a solution to a specific problem. By that I mean just because the signs are there doesn't mean we go gating it.

Sanity prevails.

Merry Xmas all.

https://puu.sh/Czy0e.jpg

There are no words to describe how bad this is getting; So I will use pictures.

Private Suburbs brought to you by a junior Waze editor. https://puu.sh/Czy7a.jpg

At least Google Maps is still allowing free choice. Enjoy the irony of the route going straight past a DOT.
https://puu.sh/Czyfs.jpg

What about that great app Waze? https://puu.sh/Czyf2.jpg

I pointed out over a year ago the disharmony of the community, the leadership and the bad decisions of one junior editor after another, constantly being defended for bad edits, by the one main Senior, out of state editor. I put it out there right away, that the communication method of the CM is bad and I think I used the word condescending.

It can't be just me who is willing to stand up to this bully. PM if you feel we need a change, I will collate the reports and forward them to Paige.

I am no longer willing to put up with the lack of respect for the experienced editors, and the lack of support from the senior editors in backing established practices in editing. And if your best response is going to be 'oh, but you're not being respectful' , I still call out your actions.

These 12 pages are 1) Person starting a thread for a decision they already knew the answer to. 2)Someone we have never seen in the Qld editing community adding in some conjecture on the 'decision' 3) Some 3rd person saying 'yeah, I 'feel' we should be doing that. and the 4th person who just loves to give university grade responses to "do you want salt" constantly.,

The rest is mostly the experience state editors, restating the fact this is not how we do it, and it had been discussed before.

Then it goes back to the same person posting over and over again, after being told NO quite clearly.

Hi Everyone,

Dana from HQ here.

Reading through I understand there's no unanimous decision on this one and that makes sense, as it's quite a complex issue. I have read through the discussion and consulted our Legal team internally to better understand the situation.

I'd like to add that our algorithm is global and not made specifically for each state, city or region and we use all available public roads which are available for use by drivers. The issue of local and non-local drivers is not a part in the route calculation nor the map information and as such not an issue that can be resolved.

As a side note, in the USA for example, it is prohibited as these are public roads (local authorities added the signs but the courts said it's illegal. With that said, we are not familiar with the rules in Australia specifically and so I can't say what the correct way to go about this is), so if it is not enforced we usually leave it as drivable, in addition we have no way of knowing who are local residents and who aren't.

I realize this doesn't fully answer your concern but I hope this is helpful in reaching some decision regarding the Local Traffic Only signage.

Thanks!
Dana