Fredo-p wrote:I'm sure CalTrans has some sort of information hub that would list this or a project page that is tracking a mass change of signs.

Sorry. You said CalTrans has update information.


California has 129 (if I did not miss any) numbered highways with exit numbers on all exits. Each roadway has 1 to 18 pages of exits with up to 25 exits per page for each direction. I-5 and US-101 are the 2 longest of the CA roadways at nearly 800 miles long.

Taking only I-5, US-101, and SR-99 and you get 44 pages x 25 x 2 = 2,200 exits on those three roadways alone.
Assuming the rest only had 1 page per roadway average and for only a single direction that is 126 x 25 = 3,150 additional ramps. That is no less than about 5,350 ramps to check/change.

Pay me $100/hour and you have a deal. Otherwise don't touch the exits with numbers that I already put in there.

OK. Sounds like we want to make a change to this text:

Wiki currently... wrote:

• If the exit sign shows a number as well as a street or highway name, the exit ramp should be named "Exit 24: Schwarzenegger Rd".
  • A colon has been added because it adds a pause, making Text-to-Speech directions easier to understand.
• If the exit is not numbered, "Exit to Kindergarten Ct" will do.
• If the exit number is assigned and designated by the local roadway agency, but does not yet appear on the sign, it is OK to include the exit number in advance of it appearing on the road sign. This prevents additional updates later when the numbered sign is added to the roadway and it helps visual guidance when other exits before that one are numbered. Drivers can better anticipate their approaching exit.

Resulting in:

Wiki proposed... wrote:

• If the exit sign shows a number as well as a street or highway name, the exit ramp should be named "Exit 24: Schwarzenegger Rd".
  • A colon has been added because it adds a pause, making Text-to-Speech directions easier to understand.
• If the exit is not numbered, "to Kindergarten Ct" will do.
• If the exit number is assigned and designated by the local roadway agency, but does not yet appear on the sign, it is OK to include the exit number in advance of it appearing on the road sign. This prevents additional updates later when the numbered sign is added to the roadway and it helps visual guidance when other exits before that one are numbered. Drivers can better anticipate their approaching exit.

PesachZ wrote:But you also have to cover exits which have a BGS.

Typo? He just covered BGS.

KB_Steveo wrote:In the entrance ramp section, last bullet, it says

Similar to exit ramps, put multiple destination information, even from multiple signage

This should probably be changed, since that is the opposite of

Do not combine all possible pre-ramp signage into the single ramp segment name.

I think we need something in between since sometimes the information that is relevant may be on multiple signs as you approach. Maybe the key target city and highways.

KB_Steveo wrote:OK, the big list says that BUS says "Business" in TTS. Would it be safe to make the following change in the Road names wiki.

From: US-90 Business S for U.S. Highway 90 Business, Southbound
To: US-90 BUS S for U.S. Highway 90 Business, Southbound

Or keep it as is?

The Road Names/USA page says this, anyway:

Similar to exit ramps, put multiple destination information, even from multiple signage, onto the single on-ramp name. Major destinations or highways/interstates can be included, but don't go crazy and add every possible town and city in that direction. "to US-90 BUS W / to I-10 W / Miss River Brg / Baton Rouge" is fine.

There was a huge discussion on removing BUS and spelling it out. If the Wiki still has BUS anywhere, we did not get it updated.

davielde wrote:If I recall, that discussion was earlier in the year when BUS was not pronouncing as "business", so we updated the wiki to spell it out until the TTS could be corrected. There may be some outstanding issues with BUS E, BUS W, BUS N, and BUS S that could be re-tested, but BUS itself would be a safe change as the TTS has now worked for a few months. I don't see a reason why the wiki could not be updated at this point assuming the different directions test okay.

I was not aware TTS now says "business" from "BUS".

Although I also thought part of the problem was a potential confusion between just the visual reading of BUS also meaning the big multi-passenger vehicles. Business prevented people from thinking it was a Bus lane or something similar.

I don't REALLY care either way, I just want to be sure we get consensus. Maybe we can start a new thread specific to Business spelled out or shortened to BUS referencing the original discussion and get it finalized.

davielde wrote:

sketch wrote:There's a big difference between the perception of "BUS" in a route number and of "Bus" in a road name. Plus, how many bus-only highways are there? Is that really a thing? I know there are bus-specific U turn segments and all, but not as a part of a US/state highway designation. I don't think it's confusing at all, especially now that TTS says "Business" there.

I just made the change to "BUS" on the wiki. Do we think that clarification should be offered there stating that uppercase is required?
US-90 BUS S for U.S. Highway 90 Business, Southbound (uppercase BUS required for TTS)
or something like that?

Yes. And also note that without it you get "Bus"

As I said I don't really care, but note that not everyone uses voice guidance (like me). So I (and others without TTS) only see "BUS" and sometimes it does not match Business on the BGS. I am sure no accidents will result from this.

I agree we don't do "lane guidance" specifically since we don't have the ability to do that across all intersection types and we hope to have it eventually in the JBs. However I also believe we have been headed toward ramp naming to improve guidance especially in complex multi-lane exits for the reasons just noted.

I believe extensive testing has confirmed that leaving the ramps blank will produce the desired routing guidance based on the final ramp destination, however there are times when the initial BGS may not match that final BGS. I believe we leave it up to the judgement of the local editor to make the decision that they believe bests fits that scenario.

I like the new guidance. There are some ramps I should update near me based on this better guidance as well. I don't use TTS, so I rarely get to hear how bad it can be.

One adjustment I would recommend:

However, in the case of exit ramps that serve multiple further exits, leaving the first ramp unnamed...

to:

However, in the case of exit ramps that divide into exits to separate destinations, leaving the first ramp unnamed... {underline for clarification here only}

I like the simplification, but I think it might be good to wrap in the two examples still.