As we are now using the Road Closure Form for reporting construction closures, I think the last bulleted item in the introduction of the Partial restrictions wiki article needs to be edited. The part I think needs editing attention is shown below in red.

A partial restriction prevents some, but not all, traffic from making a turn, or from using a road in one or both directions. Partial restrictions may be scheduled restrictions (time-based restrictions), block certain vehicle types (e.g., truck restrictions) or both.

The typical use cases are:

• *dedicated public transit (bus) lanes
  *turn restrictions during heavy traffic periods (e.g., rush or commute hours)
  *directionality changes to accommodate heavier flow on a bridge or tunnel in one direction in the morning and the other direction in the evening
  *seasonal road closures, gates, moveable bridges and ferry lanes
  *short term construction (long term closures should use disconnected roads, though time restrictions may be used to synchronize the start or end of the closure period)

Further down in the same article, it states

Disconnect road segments - Road segments should only be physically disconnected if the road is no longer intended to connect or is being permanently removed. In the past, this method was used for longer term construction projects, but now the Road Closure form should be used.

These two parts seem contradictory. If we are still suggesting to disconnect roads for NON-USA editors in this wiki article, then the wiki article needs to be revamped to give different instructions for USA and for NON-USA editors.

If you decide to make the introduction reference the Road Closure Form (USA) , then I think both parts of the article should hyperlink to the Road Closure Form (USA) to minimize the "hunting" for the link the wiki reader needs to do.

RE: clarifications for new editors.
Frequently, new editors, after reading this page, still ask whether the check boxes apply to ALLOWED or FORBIDDEN times/dates/vehicles, even though this is spelled out in the very first sentence.

I suggest a modest change at https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Scheduled_re ... strictions

FROM:

Both segment and turn restrictions are created and edited using the same user interface, but each one is accessed through a different method discussed above.
[... image ... ]
Configure the restriction as required using the guidelines described for each setting

TO:

Whether you are working on a segment or turn restriction, choose the day of week, time of day, date range, and/or vehicle type to be restricted (forbidden).
Follow the guidelines below for each setting.
[... image ... ]

Also, I have already changed
FROM:

may only restrict a few house per day

TO:

may only restrict a few hours per day

I have just implemented the simpler-lea gauge explanation for https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Partial_rest ... strictions discussed above. If this is not acceptable, please use the "undo" link in the page history.

PesachZ wrote: I believe it is more important in the case of reversible lanes so we don't accidentally send someone the wrong way down a freeway.

Is there any situation where it is possible for a driver to follow bad waze instructions and get on a reversing freeway lane in the wrong direction?

These things are handled with movable walls, barrels, and cones, which direct drivers in the correct direction and prevent them coming to head-on encounters. The authorities must have some kind of schedule during which they move the barricades to prepare for a lane reversal, as they do on the chesapeake bay bridge, for example: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 4,66981127
(once on that bridge, opposing traffic lanes are separated only by dotted lines and indicated by colored red X, green arrow markings above the lanes)

A wazer might be inconvenienced by being unable to enter the faster lane after it is blocked off by the authorities, but unless they drive over a New Jersey Wall or travelled in opposition to "do not enter" signs, they would be unable to enter a freeway lane in the wrong direction.

I think:
1) improve lede
2) merge much of overview into lede. That's what the lede is for -- overview
3) "controlling traffic" might be reworked into 1 list with wiki-format ;term : definition list (hardly ever used but still handy) instead of two separate lists, and include links to more information and/or how-to's on these other methods of controlling traffic. "controlling traffic" might eventually deserve its own article, but as such a page has not yet been developed, sharpening up this section to reflect the options and use cases as the situation progresses seems like a good idea.

Perhaps a friendly email to Ohad-Ron with a link to the wiki information on how HOV lanes are currently done would start a mutually enlightening discussion that will lead to continued enhancements.

sketch wrote:It is known that a segment restriction will not function for a single segment when you have your destination on that segment. The penalty is assessed at the end of the segment, not the start. Use a time-based turn restriction in addition to the segment restriction in order to make it work.

This should also be in the wiki

When this topic was started, the proposal was to remove some redundancy between the lede and overview. This has still not been done.
viewtopic.php?f=276&t=102595#p851053

I can do that. I propose to leave the information, meanings, guidance, etc, completely untouched in the process for simplicity. Does this sound OK?

This is a very quick and simple change. Are there any objections to this change or the one I proposed above (which was requested many many pages back)?

I cut down on repetition in the lede and the next paragraph, increased the number of outlinks, and eliminated the contradiction. I gave advice on when to consult closures, but did not include all the closures detail in this article. Probably the overview section could use some pruning as well. My eventual goal is to simplify the language, provide enough details to help make good choices, but make the whole thing less wordy and less complicated.