Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!

Post Reply

Proposal: partial divide of Paradise Rd under Monorail

Post by dbwiddis
An informal discussion has arisen among Las Vegas editors about possibly dividing a portion of Paradise Road under the monorail tracks. Opening for discussion amongst all editors and, of course RMs, Champs, etc.

Left hand turns along this section (SB at Edison and Elm, NB at Sierra Vista) require the user to get into the left turn lane well before the intersection (50m at Edison, 75m at Sierra Vista, 100m at Elm).

Permalink

The default representation for any roadway is a single 2-way segment, even if the physical roadway is divided. Dividing a roadway carries with it the burden of proof that the change will improve the usability and/ or simplicity of the Waze map.

Arguments for dividing this road:

1. Usability. These left turn lanes are actually separated from the main traffic by a concrete barrier so if you miss the early turn, you're out of luck. At one intersection (Elm), where Waze directs a left turn, the left turn is actually not possible (unless you were smart enough 100m earlier to get into the turn lane.) Separating would allow enabling earlier turn instructions and properly restricting the turn at the opening for the cases where left turn is only allowed from the turn lanes.

2. Usability. The monorail tracks (railroad type) currently do not display on the client, but may display in a future version. Currently the road is offset to one side of the monorail tracks (so that it can be edited) but this would create a confusing picture to a client who saw tracks on the opposite side in reality as in the client. (And it's a pain to edit with the tracks there.)

3. Simplicity. A one-way segment on one side of a clearly raised barrier will conform the map to a user's visual expectations.

4. The section may meet one of the criteria for dividing: U-turns are required to properly make turns from public drivable road types that are blocked by a median. A U-turn at Sands (or creative driving at a business off Elm) is required to get to the Embassy Suites from southbound Paradise Rd. (However, waze does not give a U-turn instruction there and U-turns are not allowed at Elm.)

5. The section of road does not meet any of the listed criteria for not dividing.
  • Median is about 6-7m (one lane width plus monorail support width) and about 3 feet high barrier along most of its length
  • The cross segments at two of the intersections do not permit left turn for the side of the median without turn lanes, and the third has no cross segment
  • No center turn lane (all turn lanes are clearly defined one-way)
  • No u-turns
Arguments against dividing this road:

1. If a road is currently working with no problem reports, consider leaving it as is

We have not been receiving many problem reports although those of us who drive there have frequently missed turns... when we actually turn. The main road, as an arterial, receives a LOT of traffic and the turns are comparatively seldom used (Edison goes to an apartment complex, Elm goes to a hotel and convenience store, Sierra Vista goes to a gated service entrance).

2. Try to avoid switching roads back and forth between being divided and 2-way. For example, if most of the road is clearly divided and only parts would be considered a single two-way road, consider leaving it all divided. If only a small portion seems better off divided, consider keeping it all 2-way.

This is less than a half mile stretch of the road and the remainder of Paradise (except for the portion where it connects to the Airport Connector) is clearly 2-way.

3. Simplicity. This will require the divided main road segments (not a huge problem) and each separated left turn lane (3) to be mapped.

4. Generally, a road should be undivided unless it meets any of the requirements for dividing a road. The road does not clearly meet most of the specific criteria for dividing.
  • No clearly definable gap in GPS tracks
  • No on-street parking
  • No U-turns required (But possibly see item 4 above.)
Opinions?
dbwiddis
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 146
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 20 times

POSTER_ID:13187541

1

Send a message
Attachments

Post by dbwiddis
One comment for perspective: while discussing three intersections, the driving factor for this proposal is the turn at Elm. Most drivers at Sierra Vista or Edison are likely to be residents/regular drivers of the route and more aware of the turn lanes; these are also the shorter turn segments and less likely to cause issues. But Elm is different:
  • The Elm turn lane accesses a hotel property, most likely used by visitors (possibly coming from the convention center a mile north) less familiar with the turn lanes.
  • The Elm turn lane is the longest (100m) and the final turn instruction comes (speed dependent) between 100ft/30m (too late) and 500ft/150m, either being too late or giving from 0m to 50m of reaction time to slow down and get into a turn lane (with a concrete barrier you don't want to hit at higher speed).
dbwiddis
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 146
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 20 times
Send a message

Post by dbwiddis
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:But the key factor here is found here:https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Best_map_edi ... _not_to.29
You'll note that much of my post was cut and pasted from this page, and many of my pro and con adressed these.
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:But it does have clearly defined gap between gps arrows
This is apparently subjective. I was hoping to definitively say there were, but decided not. Of course, my eyesight's not the best. But turning off all overlays except GPS, I don't see much "grey" between the green and orange at the specified zoom level. I don't think this one stands on its own.
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:If this qualifies for a split due to the above reasons, then we would also have to consider the tiny .30 mile section of road on Sands which has a divided left turn going west on Sands at Manhattan.
I'm happy to consider any other segments. Indeed this is a very similar situation with a divided left turn about 100m prior to the actual road, and monorail tracks in the median. Damn monorail.

But let me make the point that the criteria in the wiki are guidelines, and "qualifying due to the above reasons" is the wrong starting point. The starting point for this request is a usability concern that is not addressed by any of the wiki points. Per my comment above, the primary reason I am leaning in favor of this is because I don't see any other (simple) way to get an earlier turn instruction at Elm. I have personally missed that turn twice, in the same night. If I was missing the turn to Manhattan, I'd be making the same request. I'd venture to say that those turning on Elm are much less familiar with the roads than those turning on Edison or Manhattan, and in need of the instructions.

This is less a request to divide roads than a request for an appropriate way to improve the usability of turn instructions. I'm welcome to other alternatives (if any) that give earlier turn warnings but don't involve dividing roads.
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:The turn at Sierra Vista is actually the critical turn point for people coming from Las Vegas Blvd off Desert Inn or Convention Center Drive to the South Convention Hall. You have to do a U-turn to get to South Hall when going south on Paradise.
I note U-turns are enabled there. So how would dividing the road affect that? Would it say "turn left and then turn left"? Perhaps we don't divide until south of that interchange?
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:I travel this section of road multiple times a day, every day 5 days a week and don't see many turning on Edison or Elm though.
They're all missing the turn! :D :D :D Count U-turners at Sands and I bet there are more. :mrgreen:

But seriously... most of the traffic I'm concerned about missing the turn instruction at Elm is probably going to the Emerald Suites or illegally u-turning to the Embassy Suites. You're not going to see them dozens at a time or bunched around working hours. Heck, the picture above was one you sent today and you did catch one random person turning on Edison. 100% rate of a sample size of one. Good vegas odds.
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:I don't see UR's here.
Because it's a busy road with high speed traffic with concrete barriers people don't want to run into, and the first item of concern for the people who got a late turn instruction isn't to hit the Map issue button on Waze, it's to safely figure out where to turn around. How many "late turn instruction" UR's do you see in general? Not sure how many people realize it's a map issue that can be fixed. I didn't file a UR either time I missed the turn. I just assumed I was stupid and Waze was flawless.
dbwiddis
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 146
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 20 times
Send a message

Post by dbwiddis
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:The turn at Sierra Vista is actually the critical turn point for people coming from Las Vegas Blvd off Desert Inn or Convention Center Drive to the South Convention Hall. You have to do a U-turn to get to South Hall when going south on Paradise.
As you have no doubt noticed, Waze does not yet respect the U-turn you enabled here. Per the wiki:
At this time, Waze completely ignores the U-turn arrow in routing. At some time in the future, Waze might become capable of using the U-turn arrow.
...
Fortunately, the lack of U-turn support can be mitigated with a workaround. User demand for U-turns usually concentrates on divided highways where drivers must make a U-turn to reach a destination on the other side of the road. If such a highway is already split in Waze, a U-turn may be supported via a double-turn at a box junction or a hard turn at a bowtie junction. If such a highway is not split in Waze and U-turn capability is demanded, a short section of the road near the intersection may be split and a bowtie junction, or partial bowtie junction, inserted with the hard turn enabled. This approach effectively allows U-turn voice guidance using ordinary turn instructions. The need to support U-turns is one of the factors involved in deciding when and when not to split a road in Waze.
So it sounds like there are at least two usability issues on this stretch. Not only the need for early turn instructions (primarily at Elm) but also the need to generate a U-turn instruction at Sierra Vista as a temporary workaround.
dbwiddis
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 146
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 20 times
Send a message


Post by MojaveCactusMonkey
First of all thank you DBWiddis for doing pro's and con's on this subject. You did a nice job of being fairly balanced.

I understand. But the key factor here is found here:https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Best_map_edi ... _not_to.29

1) The default representation for any roadway is a single 2-way segment, even if the physical roadway is divided. Dividing a roadway carries with it the burden of proof that the change will improve the usability and/ or simplicity of the Waze map. Might improve this short segment, but see #4 below
2) If a road is currently working with no problem reports, consider leaving it as is. No reports in a long time
3) If the area has an Area Manager, consult with them before dividing/un-dividing. If the area does not have an Area Manager and after reviewing the formal guidelines below you are unsure which way to go, consider sending a permalink of the road to the map editing forums to get additional feedback from other editors. (This is what we're doing now...)
4) Try to avoid switching roads back and forth between being divided and 2-way. For example, if most of the road is clearly divided and only parts would be considered a single two-way road, consider leaving it all divided. If only a small portion seems better off divided, consider keeping it all 2-way.This section is about .39 miles long. Relatively small The segment of road from the Swenson/Paradise split at Harmon is 1.01 miles

Then also to consider these:

A road may be divided when any of the following conditions are met:
1) It is an Interstate Highway (USA) or other Limited Access Highway using the "Freeway" road type,
GPS tracks show a clearly definable and continuous gap (blank area) between the color-by-azimuth arrows at the 100m/500ft zoom level,NOT a freeway,But it does have clearly defined gap between gps arrows
2) multiple houses or businesses with no off-street parking are located directly on the street but are not accessible from the opposite direction of travel due to lengthy median, obstruction, or traffic control signage, Length=.39 miles
or
3) U-turns are required to properly make turns from public drivable road types that are blocked by a median. YES

If this qualifies for a split due to the above reasons, then we would also have to consider the tiny .30 mile section of road on Sands which has a divided left turn going west on Sands at Manhattan. THIS section clearly has a lot more gps tracks than Elm over on Paradise Road. They probably primarily go back to the Desert Club resort where there is a back entrance. The main entrance is on Koval Ln. https://editor-beta.waze.com/editor/?en ... 2,78417391

The turn at Sierra Vista https://editor-beta.waze.com/editor/?en ... 1,77616803 is actually the critical turn point for people coming from Las Vegas Blvd off Desert Inn or Convention Center Drive to the South Convention Hall. You have to do a U-turn to get to South Hall when going south on Paradise. I travel this section of road multiple times a day, every day 5 days a week and don't see many turning on Edison or Elm though. I don't see UR's here. I do not see a real benefit of converting a short portion of road. On the other hand, I don't see ANY reason to split Paradise Rd from Sands to Harmon just because we want to match the tiny portion of road (.39 miles) getting split. And if we do that tiny portion, then why aren't we doing the Sands Rd from Koval to just east of Manhattan Road using the same arguments above.

So ultimately, I see there being some minor benefit to splitting the road, but I think switching back and forth from a two way road to a split road weighs fairly heavily in my negative column. I mean, how important is this? Have we seen any UR's here even during heavy tourist and convention season? Not me... To me there is no OVERWHELMING reason to convert this. Just a little bit of a reason, and I lean just a little feathers weight in favor on converting. The question is how much to convert.

IF we do decide as a group to split whatever portion of road on Sands and Paradise, then we must plan this so it doesn't affect map tile updates. We just started our very heavy convention quarter. With the thousands of cars on Paradise and Sands, we don't want to convert it during a busy week.

I welcome others to weigh in on this subject.
MojaveCactusMonkey
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 296
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Send a message
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signatures/cones-5-small.png
MENTOR / COUNTRY MANAGER - USA


Adding PLACES?
NV Forum. NV Wiki
RI Forum. RI Wiki
CT Forum. CT Wiki

Post by MojaveCactusMonkey
DBwiddis wrote "I note U-turns are enabled there. So how would dividing the road affect that? Would it say "turn left and then turn left"? Perhaps we don't divide until south of that interchange?"
So referencing viewtopic.php?f=566&t=78041&start=120
Voludu2 wrote
1) there is a median segment of length less than 15 m
2) the U-turn to be considered consists of one one-way segment incoming to the median segment, the median segment, and one one-way segment outbound from the median segment.
3) The portion of those two segments closest to the median segment must be exactly parallel ±5°.

A convenient way to check for parallel is relative to a reference segment that connects the A and B nodes of the median segment with no geometry nodes. A median segment with no geometry nodes is its own reference segment. The reference segment can be deleted after the check is complete, if appropriate. Check two angles:
X -- the angle between the incoming one-way segment and the reference segment
Y -- the angle between the outgoing one-way segment and the reference segment.
If the sum of these two angles is within 5 degrees of 180, then rule 3 is satisfied.
And also verifying with PesachZ on this particular intersection, we should be find in ALLOWING u-turns here because the crossing segment would be greater than 15 meters. I measured it today on WME at it looks like the one way segments would be approximately 20 meters apart, which would not disallow u-turns. So that particular problem is solved.
MojaveCactusMonkey
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 296
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Send a message
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signatures/cones-5-small.png
MENTOR / COUNTRY MANAGER - USA


Adding PLACES?
NV Forum. NV Wiki
RI Forum. RI Wiki
CT Forum. CT Wiki

Post by MojaveCactusMonkey
This section of road has had a few champs review it and agree for need for divided road. We should submit our proposal to our RC Jemay and get his blessing prior to utilizing. ALSO, due to the heavy traffic turning into the convention center during CES, SEMA, and other major conventions, I believe the junctions here would qualify for a proposed junction box if it comes into production. IF and WHEN Jemay approves our divided road here, then we would need to schedule around the heavy convention weeks.

At this juncture, I would agree lean more heavily than not to agree with you dbwiddis that we should divide this road. It is not a high priority as we haven't seen UR's here, but it would be beneficial for the three left turns from southbound Paradise going left or east.
MojaveCactusMonkey
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 296
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Send a message
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signatures/cones-5-small.png
MENTOR / COUNTRY MANAGER - USA


Adding PLACES?
NV Forum. NV Wiki
RI Forum. RI Wiki
CT Forum. CT Wiki

Post by MojaveCactusMonkey
Busy. ReCon in town right now.

I'm leaning away from this project now, only because of the short distance and the recently announced purchase of the Riviera and conversion of that property to the new convention center. Maybe we should look at the new plans for the connection of property from one side of the street to the other. Have you seen any recent UR's complaining about left turns on one of these 3 intersections?
MojaveCactusMonkey
Map Raider
Map Raider
Posts: 296
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Send a message
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signatures/cones-5-small.png
MENTOR / COUNTRY MANAGER - USA


Adding PLACES?
NV Forum. NV Wiki
RI Forum. RI Wiki
CT Forum. CT Wiki