foxitrot wrote: You could try to test a Private-nonPrivate-Private triple-segment to double rise the penalty for residents-only entrances, in contrast to a single Private segment's penalty for public entrances.

Great suggestion, I think that would work well

elphix wrote:Let's give this a go and see what happens, ideally an editor who lives in a gated community with access through a boomed section

Hi, I would like to try it out in Lynnwood Manor, HERE
I live in this area and as it is a small area it is ideal to try it out here.
The main entrance is in Linfield Rd, HERE, where residents and visitors can enter and exit.
There is a residents only access gate, requiring a remote to open the gate, in Darlington Rd, HERE
There are two permanently closed gates, one in Charbury Rd, HERE and the other on at the northern end of Lindfield rd, HERE

But first I need help with both ends of Lindfield rd, HERE and HERE
I am unable to delete the unnecessary sections as highlighted in the permalinks. The error I get is "While you were editing, the elements you're trying to save have been modified and/or deleted. Please refresh and try again."
I have refreshed and cleared my browser cache, even tried a different browser, but cannot get rid of the error.
Can anyone please assist me with deleting those segments?

Regards,
Igmar

Hi Kyle,

The errors are fixed, not sure who fixed it or if it went away form Waze updates, or what, but the problem segments are gone - Thanks.

Other than that, all roads in the area that I want to test are done according to the following suggestions:

1) At the Main Gate, where residents and visitors can enter and exit, a portion of the road at the main entrance gate is marked as "Private Rd".
2) Gates or barricades on old roads where nobody can access through (i.e the road is still physically there but is barricaded) the road is disconnected and a U-turn allowed
3) Gates where only residents have access (i.e. the residents have remote controls to open these gates) and the general public cannot access, a Private-NonPrivate-Private triple-segment is added to double rise the penalty. (With this double penalty, Waze should avoid routing through these gates, and hopefully route visitors through the Single Private Segment at the main gate. When residents choose this route, Waze should not report any errors).
4) Internal roads are marked as "Street", the naming structure stays the same.

Let's see what happens.

Regards,
Igmar

Hi Carel,

I think you are right about the offending segments being ghosts. I already deleted those segments a few days earlier and then they re-appeared a day or two later. It seems that the updates solved the problem.

Regarding "Street" or "Private Rd" in boomed areas, I guess there are two different takes on that, both have it's pro's and con's.

mithrandi wrote: In some cases, the limited-access area is quite large; in these cases, I've just been marking the entrance roads as "Private road", and leaving the internal roads alone. This results in the same thing for routing (Waze won't attempt to route you *through* the area, but can still route you to somewhere *in* the area), but it's a lot less error-prone. If you try to mark every road as private, but miss one or two, then routing within the area will get pretty weird.

That is why I opted for marking the internal roads as "street". In the small area I am testing, I guess it doesn't really matter a lot, but I think it would be best to decide on a standard for internal roads if it is published in the Wiki, so there is no confusion.

Best regards,
Igmar

Hi,

I have some initial feedback on the the changes made in Lynnwood Manor, after testing for a few days:

It seems that the double penalty of the Private-Street-Private triple-segment does work for limiting the routing through the "residents only" gate, and ensuring routing through the main gate, but there is one exception...
When routing from Darlington Rd (inside or outside of the residents only gate), Here or Here, then Waze routes through the "residents only" gate. From all other roads which I tried, outside or inside the boomed area, Waze always routes through the "main gate", Here, where there is only a single Private road section.

Can anyone tell me if the length of the private road sections at the "main gate" and the "residents only" gate could influence the routing? If I increase the total length of the two private road sections at the residents only gate, to be longer in length than the private road section at the "main gate", would it increase the routing penalty at the "residents only" gate?

Regards,
igmar

Hi Carel,

Thank you for the information.

Kuhlkatz wrote:As far as I know the segment lengths would not affect the 'extra' applied penalty

I understand, so the double penalty should be a higher penalty than the single private section at the main gate, regardless of the length - that answers the question, thanks. I may just consider making the double private sections longer, only in order to make them more visible in the Live map, understanding that it will not affect the penalty.

Kuhlkatz wrote: This is likely due to the higher average speed data for Meiring Naude & Lynburn vs the internal streets and especially the Lindfield private segment at the gate, which shows an average speed of a whopping 0 km/h for both directions,

The Lindfield private segment was created recently, that is why it has 0 km/h average speed. This was related to the "ghost segments" we had there a week or two ago. The original segment there go deleted in the process of trying to sort out the ghost segments. I am sure that segment will build up a better average speed again over time.

Kuhlkatz wrote: You might want to check the option of defining the internal roads as 'private' and just have an extra private->street transition on the resident only access section in Darlington

Thanks, I will try that and see what the effect is.

I just want to comment on the routing with Waze client vs the Live map.

Kuhlkatz wrote:If I test a route betweenthese 2 segments, I get routed around to the normal gate

I checked that on the Live map and get the same results as you - routing through the main gate. However, if I use the Waze client, park on Darlington on this segment, and ask Waze to route to Meiring Naude or to the N1, then Waze takes me trough the tenant gate and not through the main gate as is the case with the Live Map. If i go just around the corner into Charbury, then the Waze client routes through the main gate. It seems that in practice, with the Waze client, the penalty of the first private segment (of the double private segments at the tenant gate) does not count if one is already on the segment bordering the first private segment. But in the Live Map that penalty does count.

All in all, it still seems to me that the double private segment at the 'tenant only gate' does what it is intended for, which is to route traffic through the main gate, while not reporting errors when residents drive through the 'tenant only gate'.
The only exception seem to be routing from the segment directly bordering the 'tenant only gate' (and only in Waze client, not in the Live Map). Adding another street segment to "mask" off the bordering segments may be a solution, but it may start to be a bit cluttered as we will then have 5 segments at the 'tenant only gate'... I will test this anyway, just to see if it works. Will also test it in combination with the bordering segment as private, as you suggested, making internal roads private. I will try a few combinations here and see what happens. This testing may take some time as I have to wait for Waze updates, and test it on the client, because of the fact that the Waze client and Live map does it differently.

Kuhlkatz wrote: Do all residents get the option of a remote control, or just some that are closer to the private gate ?

All the residents have the option of a remote control. It is much quicker to use the "tenant only" gate for residents getting onto the N1 South, because you can get onto Meiring Naude then N1, and avoid peak time traffic in Lynburn.

Regards,
Igmar

Hi Foxitrot,

Thanks for the reply.

foxitrot wrote:Igmar, I was not able to reproduce this (and it also should not be possible). Any route between these two segments should pass the main visitors gate.

I checked this a few times on the Waze client during the last few days, but i guess it is possible that the updates has not yet reached my client or something like that, so I will check a few more times in the next few days to make sure about it.

foxitrot wrote:If all roads of the Lynnwood Manor road system are to be equivalently accessible (through the main gate) (are they?), I suspect there is not much more you can do to the residents' gate definition.

Yes, once anyone enters the area at the main gate all the roads inside the area are equally accessible.

foxitrot wrote:Actually discarding the main gate's Private segment and shrinking the residents' gate to one Private segment would technically do exactly the same. As would completely setting the whole Manor area to Private segments and adding one short Street segment to the residents' gate. I just consider using one and two Private segments for gates to be more logical.

Thanks, yes that makes sense, that the 3 different options described above would all technically do the same.
I also agree with the use of the 'Two Private Segments' vs the other two methods, as it is clearly visible and more logical, and is more visible to all editors than the other two methods.

My comments on the other two methods:
1) "Discarding the main gate's Private segment and shrinking the residents' gate to one Private segment"....
With this method I would be concerned that editors will add a private segment at a 'main gate', where it was intentionally left out.
This method will rely on all internal roads to be set to 'street' to work effectively (correct me if I am wrong on that).

2) "Setting the whole area to Private segments and adding one short Street segment to the residents' gate"...
With this method editors might see the 'short street segment' at the 'resident only gate' as a mistake and delete it.
This method relies on all the internal roads to be set to 'private'.

The method of having 'Two Private Segments' at 'residents only gates' and 'One Private Segment' at main gates/visitors access gates is a lot less prone to be misunderstood by editors, compared to the other two methods, and as foxitrot rightly suggested, it is more logical.

I also think the method of having 'Two Private Segments' at 'residents only gates' and 'One Private Segment' at main gates/visitors access gates is more robust as it will work with internal roads set to 'street' and to 'private'.
Although this method is designed to work with internal roads set to 'street' it will still work if someone decides to change all internal roads to 'private' as it will then effectively operate in the same fashion as method 2) "Setting the whole area to Private segments and adding one short Street segment to the residents' gate", whereas the internal roads in the other two methods cannot work both ways.

One more thought:
One can now clearly see the importance of making all the internal roads in a boomed area either 'private' or 'street', depending on the method used, but not using both types in an area, as that would add penalties on some internal roads, and may cause routing through the wrong gates. I am sure this is already obvious to the more experienced editors in the forum, but I thought it is worth mentioning it again for any new users who might read this thread in future.

Best regards,
Igmar

Hi Carel,

Kuhlkatz wrote: If you drive westward on the Darlington segment indicated and then use the client, it takes your last direction of travel into consideration. At that point it will determine that you have no other option but to route through the residents-only section despite the higher penalty, since you have no valid u-turn point or other 'escape'.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Yes it all makes sense now as I was indeed driving West on Darlington inside the area when Waze routed me through the 'tennant only gate', and vice versa driving East from the Darlington segment outside the gate, when Waze routed my entrance through this gate.

I agree then, this method will work for the bulk of the people NOT familiar with the area, while not reporting errors for residents.

With all the info gathered then, I will leave it as is. The only small change I will make is to increase the length of the "Private-Street-Private" sections at the resident only gate, only to make it more Visible on the client and the Live Map.

Thanks for all the info and assistance.

Best regards,
Igmar


Best regards,
Igmar

foxitrot wrote: Could you try one more change? To create a u-turn just in front of the resident only gate. I assume that, according to the aerials, there is not enough place to turn back, but at least in such case the route would lead the visitors outwards trough the public gate?

Yes, I am sure that should take care of the routing, I think it would be OK for visitors to make U-turns at residents only gates, after all, that is in any case the only real option if a visitor do find himself at one of these gates with the routing from Waze, so it would be better if Waze do a U-turn instruction instead of a routing through the gate.

I will do the change and test again.

elphix wrote:So... Are we all in agreement that the way to handle gated communities is to set internal roads as normal streets with a private-street-private at the residents gates? No unknown street directions, correct (allowed) turn restrictions at said gates.

Kyle, agreed from myself, but suggest that we just consider the U-turn option before finalizing it.

Regards,
Igmar

Hi,

Just some feedback on the U-turn option.

After adding a U-turn on Darlington, before the resident gate, here, I noticed the following:

- Waze does not route through the gate at all, even if one is on Darlington rd (without the u-turn Waze would route through the residents gate if one is already on Darlington rd).
- Waze does not actually give an instruction to make a U-turn, it only stops the Waze indicated route just before the gate. I am not sure if this is the "normal" way for Waze to handle u-turns, perhaps someone can explain how Waze should handle a u-turn, as i am not familiar with how Waze should do it...

It seems that the u-turn does work, by preventing routing for normal traffic through the gate (even when one is already on the last road section before the gate), but I would have liked to see a definite instruction from Waze to perform a u-turn, instead of just "ending" of the Waze route, and assuming that the user would interpret this as a u-tun instruction.

Regards,
Igmar