Obvious missing pieces in routing code

Moderators: krankyd, Unholy

Re: Obvious missing pieces in routing code

Postby adferguson » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:04 pm

Understanding that Waze cannot differentiate driveable/non-drivable routes at present. The obvious comment is that map-editing capabilities and Waze client consumption of map data are currently out of step. Perhaps map-editing should not permit non-driveable routes to be created?

It is easy for a user to infer that this is a bug, based on the ability to create map content that would appear to support mixed transportation / walking scenarios.

Not sure what the best mitigation would be as it is always great to gather more detailed mapping data. (Hopefully client capability catches up! :) )
adferguson
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:35 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Obvious missing pieces in routing code

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:47 pm

st0ff wrote:Guess what: waze wanted to make car drivers use the walking trail.

This is not new information. Walking trails and all non-drivable segments are not to be junctioned with drivable ones. That's just the way it is and a limitation we have to live with for the time being. Waze routing code doesn't work with absolutes, especially in the situation where there is literally no other route out of or into a location other than a non-drivable segment.
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | Oregon Project/To-Do List
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone5 - VZ - iOS 7.0.6 | Waze v3.7.9.992
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 19464
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 647 times
Been thanked: 2241 times

Re: Obvious missing pieces in routing code

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:55 pm

st0ff wrote:That is not the point. If I want to reach some place where only non-driveable ways go to, I'll have to walk the last few meters and I'd be glad if my Navi tells me to leave the car on the parking lot ...

This is not case of "missing" code in the routing logic. It's not a feature of Waze. You are stating a feature request as if it was a bug. Giving any kind of walking instructions is not part of Waze. It is driving only.

Possibly some time in the (not near) future, Waze may be able to incorporate instructions on other modes of navigation (public transit, walking, biking, boat, etc.), but for the near- and medium-term, it is going to remain personal car/vehicle transit only.

And please understand that I believe your idea has merit. It's just not a feature set Waze is going to invest in any time soon.
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | Oregon Project/To-Do List
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone5 - VZ - iOS 7.0.6 | Waze v3.7.9.992
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 19464
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 647 times
Been thanked: 2241 times

Re: Obvious missing pieces in routing code

Postby scruffy151 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:36 am

adferguson wrote:Not sure what the best mitigation would be as it is always great to gather more detailed mapping data. (Hopefully client capability catches up! :) )


Currently the best mitigation is not to connect non-drivable segments to drivable ones if you add them at all.
scruffy151
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:03 am
Location: Vicksburg, MS
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Obvious missing pieces in routing code

Postby st0ff » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:52 pm

Dear Coders,

as me and a few friends have been misguided lately because I have set a few turn restrictions as I thought they are right, I have made up a few thoughts.

Imagine: we have a few roads that go from A to B, but around a mountain. There is a walking trail straight over the mountain from A to B. Guess what: waze wanted to make car drivers use the walking trail.
As far as logic is concerned, a pedestrian may take any turn, he has no turn restriction and no one-way walking trail. Also he may take the road any way. That is why I make walking trails two-way and all green arrows when editing.
Now there seems to be the point in routing code that does like:
if ( (road direction is ok) AND (I may turn in) ) {take the road}

Logically that is incomplete. It might be better to code like that:
if ( (road is of type driveable) and (road direction is ok) and (I may turn in) ) {take the road}

Any comments are welcome.

Cheers, Stefan
Wazing with a JellyBeanCannon (Android 4.1.2) on a stoneold Motorola Defy @1,2GHz
st0ff
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:04 pm
Location: Ilmenau / Germany
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Obvious missing pieces in routing code

Postby st0ff » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:02 pm

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:
st0ff wrote:Guess what: waze wanted to make car drivers use the walking trail.

This is not new information.

I thought so ...
Walking trails and all non-drivable segments are not to be junctioned with drivable ones. That's just the way it is and a limitation we have to live with for the time being.

I don't want to argue, also I don't know if you're a coder or not - so let's just keep it be.
Waze routing code doesn't work with absolutes, especially in the situation where there is literally no other route out of or into a location other than a non-drivable segment.
That is not the point. If I want to reach some place where only non-driveable ways go to, I'll have to walk the last few meters and I'd be glad if my Navi tells me to leave the car on the parking lot ...
Wazing with a JellyBeanCannon (Android 4.1.2) on a stoneold Motorola Defy @1,2GHz
st0ff
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:04 pm
Location: Ilmenau / Germany
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time


Return to Navigation & Routing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users