Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private  Topic is solved

1. Include the city and state in the "Subject:" line of your post
2. Include a Permalink to the segment(s) you wish to unlock or have updated
3. Provide a short explanation of why you need the unlock or update done.
4. Thank the user who solved the request and mark the thread Solved.

Please note that a higher level editor may choose to fix an unlock request themselves so higher value segments will remain protected at their level.

Moderators: delilush, SkiDooGuy

Forum rules
1. Include the city and FULL state name in the "Subject:" line of your post
2. Include a Permalink to the segment(s) you wish to unlock or have updated
3. Provide a short explanation of why you need the unlock or update done.
4. When completed, THANK the user who solved the request and mark the thread SOLVED.

Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby Swagon65 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:15 pm

DwarfLord(3) edited and locked a local, public road as a private road. This is incorrect. It is definitely a public road. I can't fix it because it is locked at level 3. I think this is an abuse of the Waze system for personal benefit to reduce traffic in front of one's personal residence. It is bad. I drive this road because it saves me time. Now Waze always tries to avoid it no matter how bad the routing.
Swagon65
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:27 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby DwarfLord » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:13 pm

swagon65 is completely correct that Estrella Dr is not technically a private road. However, both ends of Estrella Dr are marked as follows:

Screen shot 2014-06-14 at 12.57.39 PM.jpg
Estrella Dr signage
(15.74 KiB) Downloaded 386 times


Though I can't speak for other Wazers, when Waze routed me down Estrella and I saw the sign saying RESIDENTIAL ONLY - NO THRU TRAFFIC, I felt very uncomfortable. That's why I changed the type to Private Road.

I'm open to discussing whether this should or should not be marked in Waze as a private road. The sign seems unambiguous to me, and my discomfort when Waze blithely routed me past it was pretty strong. True, it's not actually private property and there may be no enforcement possible. But still it feels wrong for Waze to tell drivers to blow off the sign.

Thoughts welcome!

p.s. For the record, I do not live in that neighborhood. Just the opposite in fact, it would benefit me to use Estrella to get between Graham Hill and Scotts Valley.

EDIT: Permalink to the segment in question is
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-122.0 ... ts=5485942
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1063 times
Been thanked: 1428 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private  Topic is solved

Postby ottonomy » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:27 pm

I am always reluctant to take any shortcut out of the Waze routing toolbox, but where there is clear intent by municipal authorities to limit traffic through a particular residential area, I think that we need to respect it.

The road type Private is that in name, more than function. We use it in many cases which are not technically private, but where the function of the road type achieves our intended routing outcome. In this case, I don't think that Waze should be funneling traffic through there routinely. If you want to take that route, it is quite possible to ignore the Waze suggested route at that point, make the turn onto Estrella, and let the app recalculate.

If the Estrella shortcut is part of a frequent route, and whatever other options Waze suggests don't come close enough to it that they offer you the opportunity to ignore and recalculate, then it is possible to create a destination favorite in the app for one end or the other of Estrella, and route to that as a way-point. It's clunky, but functional.

The bottom line here is that we have to err on the side of responsibility, and break the rules as individuals, rather than en masse.
Country Manager & Global Champ - United States
Regional Coordinator - Southwest USA
Area Manager - Southern California
ottonomy
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Los Angeles CA
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 710 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby nnote » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:43 am

Knowing it's specifically posted as it is, Private would be the prefered setting and should be respected.
USA Territories Regional Coordinator : USA Champ : L6 State Manager Arizona

[ img ]

Waze Arizona Twitter
nnote
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:25 pm
Location: Arizona USA
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby kentsmith9 » Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:38 am

Yes. Private would be the preferred type due to the local intent of that road.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5670
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1565 times
Been thanked: 1777 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby qwaletee » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:16 am

I would actually lock it to a higher rank than 3, but I would consider putting a note in the alternate field indicating that through traffic is prohibited by signs.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2936
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1134 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby kentsmith9 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:53 pm

swagon65 wrote:I drive this road because it saves me time. Now Waze always tries to avoid it no matter how bad the routing.

I am curious how much different the routing time is between this road and the route Waze is now following to avoid Estrella Dr? Is the issue that it backs up? I think as some of the other local editors have mentioned, anyone can certainly drive any route they please and if Estrella is believed better, the driver can easily take that route against the advice of the local signs. Waze will recalculate that route and you are back on track with the 1-2 minute savings max.(?)
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5670
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1565 times
Been thanked: 1777 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby kentsmith9 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:10 pm

I was further thinking about this situation and decided to find the legal reference to it in the CA Vehicle Code book.

I have searched for the following with no matches:
  • Cut-through traffic
  • Residents only
  • Residential only
  • No through traffic
  • No thru traffic

I found a couple of sections that relate to our question but don't cover it specifically:
  • Sec 21100 starting on page 396
  • Sec 21350 starting on page 413

I only found the following related to highways:
21101.f (Regulation of Highways) wrote:Prohibiting entry to, or exit from, or both, from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element of a general plan adopted pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 65350) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The rules and regulations authorized by this subdivision shall be consistent with the responsibility of local government to provide for the health and safety of its citizens.


21103 (Signs Required) wrote:No ordinance or resolution enacted under Section 21101 shall be effective until signs giving notice of the local traffic laws are posted at all entrances to the highway or part thereof affected.


Next I was thinking these types of regulations might be covered in the local codes for a city or town. The Scotts Valley Code of Ordinances on Vehicles and Traffic has nothing that I can find related.

In summary I am under the impression that the local government can certainly impose restrictions to cut-through traffic as required. Here is an example of a study in Sunol, CA doing the same thing.

I did not find the specific entry in anything online for Scotts Valley, but it is likely just not online.

So unless someone can prove that the police cannot issue citations for ignoring the sign, I propose we keep the route restricted to local traffic only, using the current private street feature.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5670
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1565 times
Been thanked: 1777 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby DwarfLord » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:23 pm

qwaletee has pointed out to me another element in the CA vehicle code book:
21461 (Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices) wrote:(a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.

This suggests that, provided the signs themselves comply with federal sign standards and that they were placed in accordance with a local traffic ordinance or resolution, they can be enforced. If they are enforceable that makes it all the more important for Waze to respect them.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1063 times
Been thanked: 1428 times

Re: Scotts Valley, CA -- Estrella Drive is not private

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:36 pm

I clearly missed that one, but that is a perfect match to our situation.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5670
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1565 times
Been thanked: 1777 times

Next

Return to US Unlock and Update Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users