Waze forum

I-94 from the Indiana State Line to mile marker 59 (Paw Paw is exit 60) is a construction zone as median cable is installed and signs are replaced.

As the work crews move they normally close the left hand lane, dig post holes, clean up the dirt and move to a new area. In other words, the lanes change frequently. However, for the most part all lanes are open over this stretch.

Should I create an unlock request and label all 56 miles as a construction zone?

This is project 62 on the MDOT construction map. Scheduled to wrap up May, 2015.

I'm not sure what labeling a freeway as a construction zone does. A "I-94 (Construction Zone)" name shouldn't show on the map in my experience as you just get an I-94 shield. The name doesn't show in navigation instructions as the ramp names are used. The only time I know of where the name will show in the reports. So when a wazer does report the construction in the app, the pin will say "Construction on I-94 (Construction Zone)."

jasonh300 wrote:Adding Construction Zone to an Interstate name will probably break the shields, since that name isn't in the shields database.

I don't know about this. I can't find an interstate name that is currently breaking the shield on a freeway segment anywhere on the map. "I-895 N Spur" shows a shield for 895. "I-95 I-495 N" shows a shield for 95. "I-95 I-495 N Thru" shows a shield for 95. "I-95 S / Richmond" shows a shield for 95. "I-495 N / Tysons Corner" shows a shield for 495.

We probably do not want to be changing the name on that long of a stretch of freeway.

Can you provide a link to MDOT, and I'll bring up this in the US Champs Forum.

Thank You. I've requested that other US Champs comment here.

My feeling is that we may just need to let the Wazers post reports as the construction crews move along the freeway.

Changing the entire freeway name could result in unexpected problems, including the loss of the I-94 shield in the maps.

Other Champs may have some better ideas.

Here is a link to the MDOT construction map.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/ ... 0547_7.pdf

This wiki on Construction Zones has a section - major construction without closure. Here it recommends appending (Construction Zone) to the road name and adjusted the road as required.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Construction ... ction_zone.


I have another pending unlock request for I-94 construction here : viewtopic.php?f=622&t=98671

CBenson wrote:I'm not sure what labeling a freeway as a construction zone does. A "I-94 (Construction Zone)"

Adding Construction Zone to an Interstate name will probably break the shields, since that name isn't in the shields database. And in past experience, if you break the shield, you may not get it back when you rename it back to I-94.

The eternal slower speed should keep the road red all the time, and drivers will probably post reports. If there's no viable alternative route (Major or Minor Highway without adding significant route length) when the road is red due to slow speeds, routing isn't going to change anyway. The Construction Zone note isn't going to help much since you won't see it until you're on it.

Marking that long a section for only periodic and localized interruptions seems more like "error someplace". To me - construction zone implies loss of lanes/cross-overs for days/weeks at a time for long sections. And even for that, it only matters if traffic slows and you can be re-routed. The corridor of I-80/94/196 from IL to SW MI is notorious for those kinds of behaviors. Areas where work will be done are more equivalent to the temporary "mowing next X miles". When you see it, you know it and then move on - even if a temporary loss of lane is involved. Those are better reported as road hazards more precisely where the work is interfering with traffic.

If there's no closures, I dont see a need for any action. If there's construction slowdowns waze will detect it and re-route if needed.