Taco909 wrote:Okay... back to example A just to confirm....
Being a mH with less than 45 degrees, it will instruct "exit right" when the side road is a "street"
Is a "stay" instruction is desired, the appropriate fix would be to add a 5m stub of mH onto the street and leave it unnamed, thus forcing BC to stick to the left, and the instruction to be "Stay to the right to Main St"
Correct?

I have an "exit" that I need to fix.. I overlooked mH generating exits (and honestly, getting exits on most MH in my area is annoying)

Taco909 wrote:

PesachZ wrote:Alternatively changing it to a "turn" instruction also eliminates the "exit".

Agreed... and in the case I was working on, perhaps "turn" would not add confusion, but we have a LOT of freeway onramps (and regular junctions) where "Stay to the right" is appropriate, but they are MH/mH roads according to California FC.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 605&zoom=7
Stay would perhaps be more appropriate for the upper ramp with the right lane being turn-only (I see it is set to "turn").
Stay could be questioned on the lower ramp, but it really is a shallow angle and looks more natural from the street than it does from the aerial.

IMHO, if there are traffic signals and driveways on the road that I'm on, I should not be getting an "exit" instruction. This is more common than not in heavily urbanized and suburban areas.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 605&zoom=6
Both upper ramps are going to generate "Exit"... This is a numbered California State Highway... with sidewalks and bicycles and driveways (my dentist is on this street) on-street parking, etc.... All of the indications of being "Main St USA" with a 40m median that is used as a series of local parks, and they even run a classic car show on the median.
The road by no means deserves an "exit" instruction (if for no other reason than there are no exit signs )

It would be very nice if we had a way to specify the instruction (at least on MH/mH, Freeway is pretty absolute for "exit") without having to fudge a wayfinder.

I don't see an easy way to do it automatically. In my area, it would be easy to say "If the turn is less than 45 and the outgoing segment is not "ramp" then use "Stay"... but that's not going to work for rural highways that are posted with "exit" signs.

Now this guy here:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... ts=4717076
BC would be to the left, but the name changes.
Mismatched type is to the right, but the name remains the same.
Is this going to produce "Exit right to Turnbull Canyon"?

turnbull.jpg

And maybe this is a better topic for a split-off thread.

shawndoc wrote:

t0cableguy wrote: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 0,61665234

The left fork is at 1, the right fork is at 45. So Waze will only give a right turn command, the left is seen as a continuation. Both options need to be under 45, and as close to each other as possible in degrees to give a keep right/left. Also, you may need to add a street name to the left fork.

shawndoc wrote:

t0cableguy wrote:0

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 0,69679427

One angle is 48, the other is 37. Try reducing them both to under 45, and try to get the angles as close to each other as possible. The way it is set up now, the Left fork is considered a turn and the right fork is considered a continuation.

shawndoc wrote:

t0cableguy wrote:Level 3 again these are locked to 4... bet you guys are sick of me lol
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 2,66126422

I would suggest PMing TXEMT or Banished since they are last to touch the junction to find out why it is set up the way it is. Waze doesn't handle 3 way splits, and that's not how you would normally set that up. No matter what you're not going to get ideal instructions there.

pumrum wrote:I know it has been discussed with WazeHQ, and perhaps they have even made a final determination in the secret forums -- but can we get the alternate naming on ramps issue logged as an official bug on the bug sheet? I think most of us agree that to have a properly configured ramp which branches from a freeway/highway not give an exit instruction is bad. at least this way they can see that it really is causing us issues (I get reports on this every day which I have to go out and fix) and maybe even consider coding a simple exception to their algorithm for ramps.

pumrum wrote:

PesachZ wrote:They may not actually have anticipated the results to our wayfinder system.

I wouldn't care half as much if it was just wayfinders, but this is affecting properly configured exits too. Instances where you have a continuous freeway with one ramp segment that branches out to the right, and because the alternate names match on the input freeway and the output ramp, you don't get an "Exit Right" instruction. This happens every time a US or State highway splits from an interstate, for example. This is the most obvious situation I run into in CT, but I have to imagine there are tons of others (wayfinders included) that will continue to haunt us all over the developed map. Ramps are intended to be a protected class of segment. If they weren't, we'd just make all offramps freeways (yes, i know they make the client zoom in and hide the text, but those are just interface features, and it was really nice to have the functional features too).

Can't blame you for being the messenger - very much appreciate the input. i still do think we should add it to the official bug sheet. I would add it, but I haven't been able to request modify access to the sheet

taco909 wrote:Bumping this one for a new question.
In light of the revised BC, is there any functional difference between these two junctions?

bctest.jpg

Every now and then I'll work a UR where someone did not get a "turn" instruction at the end of a block.
I always assumed it was BC squelching the instruction since there is only one way to go, but in some cases, such as a "square" block with a single entrance from the feeder, or worse when the roads zig-zag as is not uncommon in the hills, it can be confusing with no turn instructions once inside.

I recently considered that the lack of instruction MAY be the lack of a 46+ degree junction angle.
The app doesn't resolve to this detail anyways, so removal of the extra geonodes is of course a good thing... but will "cleaning up" these corners in neighborhoods result in a change in turn instructions without a "stub" to nowhere?

(I only used two geonodes to smooth the transition for simplicity, in actuality on the map, 4 and sometimes 6-8 are used to make it a smooth curve so the angle at the actual junction node is frequently nearly 180)

t0cableguy wrote:unless things have changed with these i have had turn rights and lefts instructed in the past when they were set at right angles. curving them into straights junctions has supressed the instructions for me.

taco909 wrote:

t0cableguy wrote:unless things have changed with these i have had turn rights and lefts instructed in the past when they were set at right angles. curving them into straights junctions has supressed the instructions for me.

I would of course expect suppression if the junction is less than 45 degrees.

I'm not surprised at the lack of instruction on the 90s, as I have worked URs on that, but IMHO, it can be very confusing, where you make your turn, and Waze says "In 2.5 miles, turn left on West St",
but in the next 2.5 miles, you have three 90 degree turns onto different named roads.
In some cases, these junctions MAY be at an unmapped driveway or dirt farm road. Unless the driver looks at the app, they may miss the turn.

qwaletee wrote:Thanks PZ, any ETA on more info?