iKonixx wrote:It seems to me that you may be expecting a bit much considering Waze is a world first.

I don't believe it is, it's the combination of some long standing components.

iKonixx wrote:No other company has tried to do what they are doing, so I would think that this is going to be a long process before everything is perfect.

There are some very established businesses doing the exact same fundamentals. If I am frustrated at the way in which Waze does things, it is quite simply because on a daily basis I use some fairly complicated and powerful software packages that have perhaps 40 or 50 times the functionality (in terms of mathematical and dimensional line representation and design functions) and they are well done.
There's nothing new about creating a couple of lines on a map, and telling the software if they're joined, or not. Waze can't do something as simple as that. It is an inescapable fundamental requirement of this package and it doesn't work.
A different pursuit? I Beta test software like this as part of my job - some people want to know that you their software makes you feel good or that it looks nice, that there are enough pretty colours, that the box that houses the touch screen has a funky design, that fonts are right and so on....others just want to know what works and what doesn't. The businesses that I work with just want to know what works, what doesn't, fix those things as soon as they're found and get on with it. There are successes, and they define themselves quite simply by getting things right.

I admire what these guys are doing, it's an incredible thing to take on, but without fundamentals, and organised and targeted list of bugs that can be seen by users/ a current workaround and a future target date for completion - it doesn't look like any testing/beta forum I've seen before (which is where this software practically is).

Seriously - you think software that draws 2 lines across each other - which can't be split correctly is a sign that the software is going to be a success? It's the basis of what this software is supposed to do!!!!! It's step 1!!! and it isn't right......the software has gone basics wrong, and when that happens the rest just doesn't matter.
I'm waiting till they get those things right, then I'll be happy to plough a lot more time into mapping my little part of the world.

Shorty-CM wrote:Is it really that hard to figure out that if you have crossed roads and split them at the cross that it creates a junction with all four segments connected to it by that process?

No - if you want to have users globally split a million road intersections by clicking each road individually and the apply the split function to create a road section that way - then you're quite entitled to believe that it isn't a waste of time - we're working for free, it's not going to cost any more money.
You've suggested that a node be created as an additional function after a road has been created - I'm suggesting it should be done as part of the process to minimise some of it's issues....and haven't had a response in that regard. In the other instances we'll all be better off once the junction update is implemented. This thread wasn't about how to deal with the workaround, it was posted to suggested as another method of having it not occur.

There's no harm in suggesting that there is a better way to do things that are in current practice that anyone with professional experience in this area is already aware of. It would be a better outcome for all users, not just the ones that think they're right because they've dealt with this package for some months. Spend the last 25 years using similar software and you might have some notion of my point of view.

...and yes - I'm sure it will come - it did with every other software package that I've used. I assume these guys will do it too.

Do you actually have an opinion on whether the manual creation of a road that also creates nodes at each end would be of a benefit? That was (and still is) the point of this thread.

Shorty-CM wrote:4-way intersection your way:

create road
create road
create road
create road
connect road
connect road
connect road
connect road
connect road
connect road
connect road
connect road

4-way intersection my way
create road
create road
split road
remove all turn restrictions

Which would you rather do? (Believe it or not, I've done a little editing. And just *maybe* I might have a little bit of a clue as to what I'm talking about.)

No - You haven't described how I'd create an intersection, you've just described how I'd create a suburb, and the words are "insert junction", not "connect". If your area is 1 or 2 road blocks, then the way that you are looking at this is fine, unfortunately for me I have a number of suburbs to create as quickly as I can, and replying to inane and childish misrepresentations of what I have to say isn't helping in that regard. I'm looking for an effective way to create large regular rectangularly shaped suburbs effectively - there are 2 things stopping that currently:
1) The way a road terminates when it meets another at a T intersection when created manually, because it doesn't have a node at each end. (which is still open for discussion - it was the point of this thread)
2) The current problem with the insertion of road junctions

2) is being dealt with. 1) was the point of this thread.

This thread is about the merit of creating a node at each end of a manually created road, in order to possible minimise the number of instances where a road created manually terminating at a T intersection doesn't not have connectivity automatically. If the idea has merit it would minimise a substantial number of instances in suburbs that have a regular rectangular arrangement of roads at it's borders. If you have nothing to add in that specifically addresses whether nodes created as part of a manually road are of any benefit - then all you are doing is trolling. If you have an opinion on that, given your experience editing maps, we'd all be happy to hear it.

cobra wrote:2) Auto connect created road (at endpoints)(at overlaps).

Yes!

Manually draw roads, if they cross another road, then create an intersection...and in the case where you were doing a freeway passing under overpasses, hold down the control key (or something) so that the automatic intersection creation functionality was turned off. Would save days of work...or with so many users, possibly years.

With so many suburbs having such regular rectangular layouts this would make mapping significantly faster.

Yes, lock it. In 3 pages there's been only a couple of genuine replies by Cobra to address the original question.

itamar wrote:don't think this thread is so much about splitting roads or adding nodes. It's about speeding up the process when we have intersecting roads. I don't know of any way to quickly connect and remove all turn restrictions now. (Shorty's workaround is the fastest I know of, but the refresh road errors, plus clicking on the connect segment/ or remove turn restrictions hot fixes, take a long time presently, at least for me in present USA cartouche)

What we're asking for is a way to take two unrelated road segments that overlap and make all the standard connections at once. Quickly.

Yes.

I assume general principles of town planning applied the same way throughout the world until about the 1980's. Lots of suburbs with regular rectangular roads. These areas of cities could be created quite quickly as itamar suggests above. Auto creation of intersections (without restrictions) on interlocking roads.

Nodes are the fundamental way in which this software knows what it is doing when 1 road meets another. If one road crosses another, then immediately there is a requirement to place a node (in 99% of cases, with overpasses etc being the exception). I would like to see the software addressing what happens 99% of the time, rather than giving the 1% priority. That's probably a big ask in programming terms, however - if the programmers have created a function that creates roundabouts in such an intuitive and simple manner (which I though was a very difficult thing to do) then surely the software can create a node when one road is manually created and crosses another.

iKonixx wrote:Would it be possible to put in a selection that you can toggle on and off that when on will make any newly created road auto connect to any other road that it intersects? I would like this only if I can turn it on and off when I want to.

For example holding down the ctrl key when creating a road that goes under several bridges. Also iKonixx essentially raises another point, what happens when 6 or 7 roads are crossed and 1 of the happend to go under a bridge. This then raises the issue of a function that actually delete a node from a road, which as far as I am aware doesn't exist.

cobra wrote:I was editing a road the other night and decided to make it into two one way roads from a two way road with a separating line. This road intersected many other roads and connecting them all is what took up the bulk of the time I spent editing this stretch of road. It would have been nice to be able to turn it on when I was making it intersect with multiple other roads but It would have been a major pain when this road intersected a freeway. So I would like the option to turn this feature off when working with freeways and such to make it easier and faster

Yes - you're not alone. As I've suggested above, the deletion of a node when connected to a road as an additional function would now be required.

cobra wrote:How about a "Alt-Click" action - if you do it on a spot where two roads overlap, they automatically are joined w/o turn restrictions, with full connections.

Yes - this too. currently the split function at an intersection creates the requirement to teel the map that there are no restrictions - once again I would suggest that 99% or roads do not have turn restrictions and that the software is catering to the 1% of instances where restrictions are present.

zzyzxuk wrote:When making a simple T connection for example it requires at least 4 actions to get them connected, that takes up a lot of time so anything to speed that up would be nice!

A "split road with node" function would be very hand. Drag the end of the road up to the proposed t intersection with modify geometry placing the node over the crossing road, select the node, choose the "split road with node" function and have a fully connected t intersection (without turn restrictions!)

....and thank you guys for bringing this topic back to what it was all about.

Here's a specific single connection in the area you've reference above:
http://world.waze.com/cartouche/?zoom=9 ... 1=52797507

It's strange. Of course, I'm too far away to be able make any changes, so I can't experiment to see exactly what's going on.

It appears that that intersection contains one node, and four road segements (Evescourt Road, North and South; and Portland Place, East and West).

The road segments are all two way (I attempted to edit each segment, and they all have a direction of "two way").
The four segments all connect to the intersection, both as arrival and departure routes (Select the intersection, with "Highlight Connectivity" enabled, and see all four segments highlighted green and orange).
It's possible to drive down each road, straight across the intresection (select each segment, and see the opposite segment highlighted green and orange).
However, it's not possible to turn at the intersection (select each segment, and see the adjacent segments are not highlighted). There are no turn restrictions though.

There certaintly seems to be a discrepancy between the connectivity of the intersection, and the (lack of) display of turn restrictions. It's as though there are two intersection nodes, one on top of the other, so we've got one road bridging over the other. But that doesn't match the connectivity of the one node I did select (it's not impossible there's a second node hidden under there, but I can't get to it, and I don't think it's relevant to the problem. That could be checked by moving the intersection slightly, and seeing all four segments follow the move).

To fix the problem, I'd hope that one of the following would work (in order of ease of application):
1. Select the intersection, and remove all turn restrictions.
2. Select one of the segments, and connect it to the two adjacent segments (so you can turn left or right). Repeat for all four segments.
3. Select a segment, and the intersection, and disconnect them. Repeat for all four segments, then delete the node. Then edit the geometry to extend one of the (shortened) segments back to the location of the intersection, and connect one of the adjacent segments to it. That should give you a sharp turn at the right place, and you can then connect the other two free segments to the connected ones, and (finally) remove all the turn restrictions.

But I don't think that's anything to do with the explicit display of the nodes at the ends of newly created roads: you'll notice that, during the execution of the third (nastiest) suggestion the shortened segments don't display nodes at the end, but clearly have "anchor points" in the geometry. The explicit intersection node will be recreated when you connect the segments.

Strange. I just fired up the map editor, and it took me straight to the Portland Place/Evescourt Road intersection, but this time, it shows turn restrictions. So it now looks as though the connectivity is consistent, whatever was going on before.

In which case, just select the intersection, and remove the turn restrictions. That ought to do the job. Rinse and repeat everywhere necessary (I presume). Which is tedious, but still wouldn't be affected by (simply) adding a node to every road end. It's applying automatic connectivity which would be needed to abrreviate that.

cobra wrote:What we're asking for is a way to take two unrelated road segments that overlap and make all the standard connections at once. Quickly.

+1

How about a "Alt-Click" action - if you do it on a spot where two roads overlap, they automatically are joined w/o turn restrictions, with full connections.