Vespucci41 wrote: MTEs:
- Construction MTEs
---> Start date should only be in the next 365 days
---> End date is not limited

Hi, Ruben!

Is there any problem with extending the end date of an existing MTE (already submitted and active)? Or should I create a new MTE?

I pushed out the end date of one that's been running for some time. It seemed to save OK, as amended. Thanks!

Thank you for the update!

Getting ready for the next steps?

Awesome!

Thank you very much for the update!

This will be very helpful!

Thanks,

Ted

A very good news
Thank you

Twister-UK wrote: Currently we therefore have three choices:

1. Remove the segments and redraw in time for the reopening.

2. Apply an all vehicle 24/7 restriction

3. Apply multiple adjoining closures

4. Convert to Runway. Apply closure. Closure displays in the app but there's no way for Waze to route through if the closure ends early. When the work is done, change it back to the correct type and you're set.

For some construction work, segments may end up closed off for a few years without any (or at least any significant) changes to their geometry, and with the intention that after the works are completed the roads will reopen.

Currently we therefore have three choices:

1. Remove the segments and redraw in time for the reopening.

2. Apply an all vehicle 24/7 restriction

3. Apply multiple adjoining closures


1 means having to recreate everything about the segment - its geometry, road type, naming etc - and in the meantime depending on how obvious it is that the road is closed off (e.g. if it's just coned off at either end but still clearly visible as a road, or if the worksite has built their boundary wall right across the junction so that you can't even tell a road was there) we may have to deal with numerous URs from users reporting missing roads.

2 preserves data and keeps the road visible in the app so also avoids the missing road URs, but *doesn't* display the road as closed in the app, so users are then likely to instead report it as closed via URs, or via in app closures, which at the very least is a distraction for them and can also lead to extra work for us.

1 & 2 both then also mean that, when the road reopens, if we haven't already made the necessary changes in the map data in time for the next tile rebuild, the road could end up still marked as out of use for several days whilst we play catch up. Depending on the road in question, this length of delay could be a real problem for local users...

3 preserves the segment data *and* makes it clear to users that the road is closed, so greatly minimises their likelihood of reporting it. Crucially, it also means that, as soon as we become aware of the closure ending (or needing to be extended), that change can be made and take effect in the app in a matter of minutes. The only downside right now is needing to manage a potentially large number of adjoining closires, making sure they all join up correctly without gaps and making sure all of the common bits of closure data are copied across from one to the other consistently.


So for HQ to now be giving us an option 3++, with all the benefits option 3 has always provided but without the drawbacks, will be of genuine use to quite a few of us when dealing with long term closures. To the Devs - thank you!

But still suffers from needing a tile update before the road can be reopened, and also requires the original segment type to be set correctly again as part of the reopening process.

Actually, I did forget something about option 2, which is that if we so chose to do so then we could *also* apply a closure to the segment after applying the restrictions (and indeed some of us will do this at least to cover the period between the road needing to be closed off and the next tile update when the restrictions take effect), which gives much the same results as your suggestion, though without losing the original segment type.

I guess this just highlights why being able to apply indefinitely long closures is going to be so useful - right now we have all of these different ways to achieve long-term closures, each of which have their own pros and cons, so being given a method which is all pros and no cons (or at least none that come to mind so far) feels a bit like being given a late Christmas present that HQ have just found tucked in the back of the wardrobe...