Nope, understood!

I want to bring up the "Simple is better" text:

When representing junctions, intersections, interchanges, cross roads, corners, etc., the Waze map does not need to perfectly match the road layouts it represents. The primary goal is to represent the real world as simply as possible in the maps and only introduce complexity in the maps to address complex issues.

While this isn't necessarily bad, our number one goal should be accurate and non-misleading navigation instructions. Simplicity is fine, but not at the expense of navigation. Something with a tone like "Keep the map as simple as possible without sacrificing accuracy of navigation instructions."

Related but distinct, I think the "intersections" page will need a brief explanation as to when to include turn lanes and when not to, with a link to the at-grade connectors page. There doesn't seem to be any mention of them at all except in the example on "controlling turn instructions".

I combined the "diverging" and "crossing" roads pages into one: https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Sty ... ersections

That's basically the idea, except specialty/rare cases will be in the relevant other guides. "Intersections" and "Interchanges" will be the "non-highway" and "highway" guides, respectively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Kent, can you add construction boxes to the JSG main page and the exceptions section of the at-grade connector pages? The outdated data on those pages is causing confusion with editors who see unconventional AGC-ramp usage in places on the map. I don't have time to fiddle with template parameters at the moment.

The bowtie section does not adequately explain the purpose of bowties or when to use them.

Which is fine. I friggin' hate bowties.

DwarfLord, do you have any examples of the "at-grade connector" type? Is this the same or different as the type with a diagonal segment or two in the box?

kentsmith9 wrote:Once we get junction boxes, all this goes away.

Indeed. I can't wait.

The short term advantage of Bowties is simplicity with correct turn instructions, which is our primary goal, correct?

The goal is to enable the restriction of U turns, the advantage over a simple box is that U turns are restrictable. If U turns are allowed, the bowtie introduces difficulty that is avoided with a simple box intersection. It's easy to get bowties wrong — the geometry needs to be correct to give the proper instructions, or else you're gonna get a "turn right" when you're supposed to go straight, a "stay left" when you're turning left, and so forth. It's really not all that easy an intersection to edit — it may even be deceptively difficult.

On the client map it is hard to tell the road actually is a bowtie. I think only us OCD types notice it is not perfectly matched to the road, but so are a lot of things more obvious than this.

Maybe on smaller streets, but this cannot be said for the Las Vegas Strip.

Long-awaited. "Delayed" implies a date has been set and missed.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Sty ... ersections

I have started work on the "split road intersections" section of the intersections subpage.

Including — making that section at all, basically. Before, the entire section was a guide on bowties, which I believe led to the overuse of the bowtie in certain areas. There was 0 guidance on any other way of representing a split road intersection besides with a bowtie — even when U turns are allowed.

Bowties are never necessary at 3-way intersections, or at 4-way intersections where all U turns are allowed or where restricted lefts would restrict any disallowed U turns anyway. I intend to limit their use to only those situations in which they are necessary — because the bowtie is less intuitive, can increase complexity (where a bowtie would require AGCs to suppress MPs and advance instruction timing), and can cause problems (vis-à-vis turn angles creating unnecessary instructions).

I also intend to offer alternative methods to restrict U turns (including the 'diagonals in the box' method).

I'm also trying to keep in mind what might change when Junction Box is introduced — some of the guidance will, I imagine, remain similar to the guidance as to when to use bowties/alternatives, although it will differ slightly (e.g., no need for a Box when all lefts are restricted or when restricted lefts disallow all U turns anyway; use a Box wherever U turns are allowed).

The bow tie section is inconsistent because it's largely the old guidance with some sentences removed and a couple added. A work in progress.

I'm not sure if the segment-segment delay function is even active; I heard someone say it isn't actually. But perhaps that's a reason for using Junction Boxes for all split road intersections in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

CBenson wrote: But we do get routes like this. Waze does in some circumstances calculate that a right followed by u-turn and another right is faster in time (on average) than just going straight.

This is an example of right-U instead of left though, not right-U-right instead of straight.

Right-U-right should be taken care of by existing detour prevention for all but streets and primary streets anyway. I haven't seen an example of that in a while.

Maybe a simple box intersection could commingle the data enough to make a right-U instead of Left happen, but a dedicated left turn lane can be slow enough to make a (pass-thru-then-)U-right instead of Left happen (I have proof!). I imagine a bow tie or diagonal could have the same effect (at least, if the transition times are actually being used). I don't get that U-right anymore though, so maybe small detour is in place?

qwaletee wrote: Next: We're going to deep in the number of headings. We're already at =====, and some of the sections at that level are really subsections (I think) in structure. For example, I would think that U-turns would be a heading that explains the problem and includes subheads for bowtie and bypass connectors (aka, slanty left tpage. a separate urn lanes). Instead, they are forced to be at the same level because we've gone this deep. Some restructuring at the higher levels might be warranted, or a breakout into.

I simply strive to organize the article logically; "avoiding U turns" guidance is only necessary for four-way split road intersections, so it goes there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2