waynemcdougall wrote:4. No wonder you are annoyed. It is totally unacceptable to get wrong verbal instructions.
I agree. You can watch the map on your device and see where to go. However, I want the instructions to be right AND I want to understand how it works and why it doesn't in this case. I'm a precisian
It's not merely about precision (although that is important). I never watch the map on my device. It's not safe to do so. (IMO, and certainly in my car). And I'd never glance down when approaching a large complicated (to me) roundabout. And I'd trust straight through, as it is very clear.
So it needs to be fixed because it is wrong and dangerous. It's not about you being precise.
deeggo wrote:in NL, many 'simple' roundabouts connecting 4 roads can even be a bit tricky, as the angles between the exits may be far from 90 degrees. So, continue straight may actually be 'keeping a bit left', if you get what I mean. But enough about my preference. Either way, the system has to do it right, but we agree on this.
Yes, I understand. I don't mind if it is a bit to the left. but major differences shouldn't be straight ahead. I'd be interested in seeing any other even 'simple' ones that you think are wrong.
Don't undersell yourself. Your preferences seem entirely reasonable. I think at a + or near + roundabout, left, right or straight through is ok(better IMO). Anything wonky and Waze inbstructions need to play it safe.
9. One way would not be to make it a roundabout at all. Just roads that are in an oval shape. But would drivers consider it to be a roundabout, and expect at the nth exit?
It formally is a roundabout. The traffic signs say so. Furthermore, the distance between the 2nd and 3rd exit in this case is so small, that only a "Turn right" wouldn't be enough. The turn right for the 3rd exit would be heard upon passing the 2nd exit, causing people to quickly take that exit.
Good. That's what I thought. In future, we will get a "and then" for instruction that quickly follow each other. But regardless, this should clearly be a roundabout with working roundabout instructions.
11. My suggestion would be if the distance is more than 40m to switch to nth exit prompts. That should be easy to implement.
I think it should be dependent of the diameter. A hypothetical roundabout with a diameter of 10m with ten exits has 6m per exit. Maybe the angle is a better approach. Then it should say if the angle between exits is smaller than X then switch to nth exits prompts.
I think we'll see if my suggestion will work.
Because it can take existing data from routing server. Whereas your suggestion requires a lot of information and calculations in surrounding areas. Think about the implementation.
See at that roundabout, I'd be happy if it said (turn right at the aroundabout) for the first exit and (take the second exit) and (take the third exit) for the next two.
It just may easier to put an override on.
I thought about just going by size, but I've seen bigger roundabouts that are still just large +
12. What is the current status of your discussions with Waze HQ support?
Support more or less gave up, because they didn't know what the actual mechanism is. That surprised me. Their colleagues made it.[/quote]
A support person isn't going to be a programmer. And programmers shouldn't waste time on support.
That's why it is so important to carefully prepare a case and argument that you pass on to support who can almost just flick it on to the programming development team who can look at it and understand it.
OK, well I'm not going to give up on this until there is an answer. I think I shall recreate this roundabout in the middle of the ocean and find out what the limits are. That is going to take a long time (weeks or months), as I need to wait for the Livemap updates to check the routing. But I won't give up.
Conversely, if it does start working for you, please don't post in this forum topic, along with any other comments or helpful references. Or you can PM me if you prefer.