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

Moderator: Unholy

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

Postby CBenson » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:53 am

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:
CBenson wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:It's because the angle wasn't steep enough at the time. Now it does do as you'd expect and say "stay left".

I don't think any angle would give a stay left instruction if the two segments in the permalink were ramp segments. The road type continuity would make the ramp to the highway the best continuation and suppress the instruction.

It shows a stay left in livemap instructions.

But its no longer a ramp segment so there is not currently road type continuity.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.3.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10075
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1004 times
Been thanked: 2234 times

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

Postby GooberKing » Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:21 pm

To put a twist on this topic, we've come across an interesting situation in CT that I think would work better as a two-way ramp. This ramp is currently mapped as two one-way ramps, despite the road not meeting requirements for a split road. I'm proposing we redo this as a two-way ramp, but make it with two connected segments: One named "to SR-68" and connected to N Colony Rd, and the other named "to US-5 / to SR-15" connected to Church St.

I think this would make the road look better on the map and make it easier to maintain, as it reduces segments and geometry nodes. I realize Validator will get an aneurysm over it, but is there any technical reason why this would not work? Or is this just one of those "That's just not how things are done" situations?
Image
State Manager of Rhode Island (and also Connecticut)
RI Wiki | RI To Do List
Verizon | Android 5.1 | Waze v3.9.5.4
GooberKing
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Has thanked: 121 times
Been thanked: 49 times

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

Postby CBenson » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:57 am

I think it would work fine.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.3.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10075
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1004 times
Been thanked: 2234 times

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

Postby voludu2 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:04 am

When penndot recruited a part of a ramp to temporarily serve as a part of a surface street during construction, we did exactly that in Philadelphia.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 588&zoom=7

Some Ramps are not very ramp-like in the sense that they are at grade. They are still "slip roads".

ImageState Manager - Pennsylvania
Country Manager - USA and Thailand
Wiki Master, Global Mentor
utilitas, simplicitas, retentionis
voludu2
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:33 pm
Location: Chester County, Pennsylvania
Has thanked: 392 times
Been thanked: 676 times

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

Postby sketch » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:00 pm

GooberKing wrote:To put a twist on this topic, we've come across an interesting situation in CT that I think would work better as a two-way ramp. This ramp is currently mapped as two one-way ramps, despite the road not meeting requirements for a split road. I'm proposing we redo this as a two-way ramp, but make it with two connected segments: One named "to SR-68" and connected to N Colony Rd, and the other named "to US-5 / to SR-15" connected to Church St.

I think this would make the road look better on the map and make it easier to maintain, as it reduces segments and geometry nodes. I realize Validator will get an aneurysm over it, but is there any technical reason why this would not work? Or is this just one of those "That's just not how things are done" situations?

I don't see any reason why this won't work, and I'm sure it's working fine. But it's also a bit of a hack, and in situations like this where the previous iteration was also likely working just fine and wasn't really any more difficult to maintain, well, all you're doing by reconfiguring it is losing a bunch of historical speed data.
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5664
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1227 times
Been thanked: 1685 times

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

Postby GooberKing » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:54 am

sketch wrote:I don't see any reason why this won't work, and I'm sure it's working fine. But it's also a bit of a hack, and in situations like this where the previous iteration was also likely working just fine and wasn't really any more difficult to maintain, well, all you're doing by reconfiguring it is losing a bunch of historical speed data.


Ehhh... To me, a "hack" is when you make the map more complex (and harder to maintain) in order to accommodate certain edge cases. This case is more about using unorthodox methods to simplify the map (by reducing geometry). Mostly just wanted to confirm that there's no technical limitations here, and it's just something that makes other editors feel squicky ;)
Image
State Manager of Rhode Island (and also Connecticut)
RI Wiki | RI To Do List
Verizon | Android 5.1 | Waze v3.9.5.4
GooberKing
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Has thanked: 121 times
Been thanked: 49 times

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

Postby sketch » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:16 pm

Sure, I understand that. There are different definitions of "hack", but I think a better one is "using nonstandard editing practices to accomplish something that standard editing practices cannot accomplish".

Here, maybe each way is somewhat of a "hack", considering that the former iteration of it used two parallel segments for an undivided roadway. But the other way at least looked normal, in such a way that there's no chance a passing editor would consider it some sort of mistake, and such that it didn't throw any Validator flags (not that that in particular is evidence of whether an edit is okay, but it does signal passing editors that something might be wrong, whether or not something is wrong).

There's also the fact that Waze 4.x shows the name of the current road on screen, and that can be potentially quite confusing for someone on the second half of that ramp, thinking, "Wait, I just got off SR-68!?"

My point, however, is that the amount of work that went into reconfiguring this interchange far exceeds the amount of work it would have been to maintain it in the previous configuration ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"), especially when you have to start explaining it to every passing editor.

Simplifying the map is not an end in itself. Our goal is not to make the map "easier" to edit. We are here to make the app work the best it can with the map we have, and secondary to that is making the map understandable to other editors, not necessarily simple. In some respects, in some areas, the Waze map has been or was oversimplified for a long time, and that comes at the expense of ease of editing. Why do you think so many noobs have taken an undivided road and built them into divided roads? Because it's reality. Because it's not easy to understand why someone would draw a clearly divided roadway as a single segment. Because the editing rules that came about because of that are not as easy to fathom as they would be if the segments were simply drawn in ("why all these turn restrictions?!").

Why did we do it that way? This powerful spectre of "simplicity" that has haunted us for half a decade, making us edit the maps in ways that are more difficult to understand (against our secondary goal of making the map understandable to editors), forcing us to "reach our destinations" when we are still on the wrong side of the road (against our primary goal of making the app work well)...

Maybe this reconfiguration is marginally "simpler" (OK, two fewer nodes on the connected segments, though you still have the same number of ramps...), but it's more difficult for a passing editor to understand, and it has negative effects on navigation in the client (historical data is lost, plus confusing current road name display in 4.x). So, where does that leave it?
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5664
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1227 times
Been thanked: 1685 times

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

Postby voludu2 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:36 pm

sketch wrote:There's also the fact that Waze 4.x shows the name of the current road on screen,

There's something I actually haven't noticed while driving.

That would certainly lead to some different editing choices.

ImageState Manager - Pennsylvania
Country Manager - USA and Thailand
Wiki Master, Global Mentor
utilitas, simplicitas, retentionis
voludu2
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:33 pm
Location: Chester County, Pennsylvania
Has thanked: 392 times
Been thanked: 676 times

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

Postby CBenson » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:51 pm

voludu2 wrote:
sketch wrote:There's also the fact that Waze 4.x shows the name of the current road on screen,

There's something I actually haven't noticed while driving.

That would certainly lead to some different editing choices.

So does it do it for ramps segments? That would be a significant change as we do generally edit with the idea that ramp names won't display on the client map. Kind of surprised there haven't been complaints.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.3.0.1
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10075
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1004 times
Been thanked: 2234 times

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

Postby voludu2 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm

I might take an alternate route today.

ImageState Manager - Pennsylvania
Country Manager - USA and Thailand
Wiki Master, Global Mentor
utilitas, simplicitas, retentionis
voludu2
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:33 pm
Location: Chester County, Pennsylvania
Has thanked: 392 times
Been thanked: 676 times

PreviousNext

Return to Navigation & Routing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users