DeadOnTheFloor wrote:and now someone who like to implement their own interpretation, has ended up hamstringing the app and the editors...again.

Can you provide proof that it's not working as intended?

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

In what way is trialling this showing that it's not normal? A trial suggests a solution to a problem of the "Local Traffic Only" signage.

DeadOnTheFloor wrote:Just wrong, against state guidance, if you had asked.

How would we know this is state guidance? It's not documented anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, when doing this incorrectly, the routing behaviour is very undesirable, but when doing it correctly, there aren't any downsides, beyond one less option for through traffic, which has been decided by a local government to be not desirable.

Your point basically is showing me that you simply "don't like it" and you don't have any logical reason for it.

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.

funwayz wrote:The signage has been used in cases where through traffic is not wanted, as the State Government has clearly explained.

Unfortunately due to how things went with the previous "discussion" on this issue, things were left down to me.

Consider your first post in this entire thread though. The government representative clearly stated that this was not a legally enforceable sign. That means that our hands are tied on this issue, as we cannot justify changing our standards for something that 1. doesn't provide a solution to any problem we *currently* face and 2. isn't legally binding.

I understand the rationale behind it and the want to obey a suggestion, however I think this needs to be let go. As theclem54 noted, this kind of thing needs to solve an issue, not an "issue" that no one's had yet. If we want to gate something, we need a reason to gate it, whether it be UR's or other things that require action.

Then why did you bother even bringing up the conversation if we're all so "out of our depth"?

I get you're passionate about this but you have to admit that some compromise is better than nothing. We've all come to a reasonable understanding, but you seem stuck on doing something for no proven reason. We are not lawmakers, nor interpreters of the law. We're complicating the map for no proven reason and you see no problem with this? If that's true then I think you need to have another read of Waze's goals.

Oh, I have no issue with the method of gating an area, more so the reason we need to gate it in the first place.

These kinds of gating where it's legitimately being used to solve an issue would be locked at a level high enough to prevent interference.

I believe the criteria for gating it would be if "the alternate route through the signs causes issues", whether that be with the community or government. And that also assumes that the routes would even be used, which hasn't really been demonstrated in some of the gated areas.

funwayz wrote:If you have been paying attention to Discord as well, people have agreed that the gating is a viable option and that we should be following the Government's advice.

As someone who has been paying attention to the Discord, nothing has been even remotely said about that being viable.

I hate to tell you, but this is the wrong forum, and the creators of the app are Israeli.

LostInMyMaps wrote:Reported post for spam.

Removed due to all the links in the signature