Two-way Ramps vs. Routing [Split from WME Validator]

Moderators: Unholy, bextein

Re: Two-way Ramps vs. Routing [Split from WME Validator]

Postby sketch » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:15 pm

Touché, but my point is that in practice "simple" is often confused with "simplistic". Don't add "unnecessary complexity," emphasis mine. The definition that says "split roads are bad, k?" is really, overall, a simplistic vision of what the map should look like without regard for performance.

That's more of a general point, anyway. In this case I'm not really sure what definition of "simple" is being used here. If it's an application of "split roads are bad, k?", then, okay, and while it doesn't have the same problems as with most divided roadways represented as a single line (misleading destination announcement, etc.), it's still a bit obtuse. If the definition is "fewer things on the map," well, you've removed one segment and doubled another, and removed two nodes and created one, so the net result is only one node fewer than there was before, same number of segments.

I'm sorry to make such an example of this particular interchange, and I want to be clear that I don't believe this is specific to this one example. But many of us often let Simplicity get in the way of other things, particularly the big, bold Usability and the big, bold Retention. And that's a mistake.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10940
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1612 times
Been thanked: 2154 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.3 (BETA) / 12.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:21 pm

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:I would like to see "2-way ramp" removed from the error list for US.


Why? Where in the US is a freeway ramp ever two-way? <puzzled look> :?:
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.3 (BETA) / 12.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:41 pm

GizmoGuy411 wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:I would like to see "2-way ramp" removed from the error list for US.


I agree. Like them or not they exist. I can't provide a PL at the moment, but look at I-75 Exit 14 Elm Ave in Monore Michigan for one example for both N and S sides.

Just painted lines. No physical divider even.


I found it. Here's your permalink.

And, wow. :-) Never seen 'em like that before. Ok, thanks for providing an example that answered my puzzled question. :D
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.3 (BETA) / 12.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:45 pm

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:I would like to see "2-way ramp" removed from the error list for US.

Why? Where in the US is a freeway ramp ever two-way? <puzzled look> :?:

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=5&lat ... 79&env=usa


Thanks for the extra visual aid. :-)

There's no reason for that small area to be packed with two 1-way segments. Added complexity with no added value goes against the stated Waze Goals. Ramp segments like this are all over and will stay that way because there is no good reason not to.


No argument there - in both cases, the road structure itself suggests a two-way road on the map.

Question: In cases such as those, wouldn't it just make more sense to make them two-way streets until get to the point where it actually splits into on/off ramps attaching to the freeway? Is there a reason why that stretch of road segment must be type ramp?
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.3 (BETA) / 12.02.2014

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:13 pm

CBenson wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:Question: In cases such as those, wouldn't it just make more sense to make them two-way streets until get to the point where it actually splits into on/off ramps attaching to the freeway? Is there a reason why that stretch of road segment must be type ramp?

Not sure they have to be ramp, but they shouldn't be streets. If not ramp, they should be typed at least as high as the lower of the types that they are connecting so not to interfere with the long route pruning routines. But, ramps usually just look better to me in those examples to me.


Well, substitute "Primary Street/Minor Highway/etc" where I said "street" in my original question, then. :-)

Yea, ramp looks good given what it's leading up to; I get what you're saying there. However, in the grand scheme of things, what I saw in those examples look to me like a road leading up to the actual ramps going on/off the freeway and is not actually part of the ramp itself.

Having the validator not highlight a two-way ramp just because of the examples that I've seen so far seems like a good way of increasing the chances of someone missing a two-way ramp that actually shouldn't be two-way, without actually providing any real benefit.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:27 pm

berestovskyy wrote:'Two-way ramp' will be disabled for US.

dbraughlr wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Ramp segments like this are all over and will stay that way because there is no good reason not to.

The rumor was that two-way ramps have caused routing issues.

I don't know the history of the rumor and have no good way to disprove or prove it.

A test case is a two-way ramp of considerable length (say, one-half mile) connected to two short one-way ramps connected to the freeway. When the on-ramp is restricted (closed), will Waze route the wrong way for a short distance over the off ramp to reach the highway?

The problem is that if a turn is permitted onto a ramp, the ramp should lead somewhere. When the one of the two short ramps is closed, the two-way portion would have to be made one-way in the direction that is still open to prevent routing problems.
With a one-way ramp, the entire ramp is either open or closed. Waze never encounters a dead-end while traversing a ramp.

I agree with dbraughlr - I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:54 pm

dbraughlr wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.

I didn't say that and don't want to. But how did the validation get in there?

My apologies for not being more clear. I meant that as I read your post, you were raising a concern and that based on that, I was making my own comment that I thought things should be looked into more fully. I never meant to imply that you were calling for anything of that nature.

People say that the "same endpoints" error is real. I am on the side of excluding the validation until it is shown that it is a still real problem, especially since the solution seem to be to insert an unneeded node node that will have to be removed after the bug is solved.

Completely agree here. "Begin and end on same node" has been shown to be a problem. I haven't seen anything conclusive that "same segment" gives any problems - at least not with the recent editions of the map. I've been adding the extra node just to get the Validator to shut up about it on the highlighting, since unlike the Toolbox it doesn't give me the means to turn that check off. And I've been grumbling under my breath as I've been doing it.... :?

The dead-end U-turn seems to be a true bug. But having editors fix the dead-ends one-by-one seems like a poor way to solve the problem.

I agree again, but unfortunately we're at the mercy of the programmers getting around to deciding to fix it. Until they do, if we don't "hack the map" on this issue, we get URs from annoyed drivers who didn't appreciate getting sent down a long dead-end road just to be turned around and then hang a left back onto the very road they had been on. Can't say I blame 'em. :-)

The one good thing about it that we don't have to go back and undo those if/when they ever get that bug fixed - I mean, face it: When would you ever want to deliberately send someone down a dead-end to pull an about-face? :D
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:57 pm

sketch wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:I agree with dbraughlr - I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.

We've been using two-way ramp segments for years without incident. The inclusion as a check may comport with INTL rules and practice for ramps, but they do not comport with ours.


Ok, I'll take your word for it. :-) You've been here longer than I have, so you'd know if it's ever caused any problems more than I would.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:16 pm

sketch wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:People say that the "same endpoints" error is real. I am on the side of excluding the validation until it is shown that it is a still real problem, especially since the solution seem to be to insert an unneeded node node that will have to be removed after the bug is solved.

It is a bug known to many. There have been multiple threads about it. I can't find them because they were started without an understanding of why Waze was giving such bizarre routes (because we figured it out using those threads). I'm trying to find them now, but I don't know if I will. If you're not willing to take a few champs' words for it, I don't know what else to tell you.

Me, personally, my concern here is that it could very well be one of those things where at one time it was, in fact, a problem. But now it may not be; they may have fixed that issue. My question is: Have there been any recent examples of this being a problem?
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby Timbones » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:00 am

dbraughlr wrote:If would be fine for an administrator to break out the various diversions into a separate thread.

It is done.

Carry on!
Timbones
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 11210
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:33 am
Location: York, UK
Has thanked: 991 times
Been thanked: 2712 times

PreviousNext

Return to Navigation & Routing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users