[Page Upate] Road Elevation

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby PhantomSoul » Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:47 pm

I would think that, generally, the road on the bottom is ground and anything passing over it is a higher number. There are exceptions, mostly technical to Waze, though. An urban or suburban freeway or MH with lots of frequent grade-separated crossings is going to have to remain ground if adding all the nodes to represent the overpass on each block correctly is going to cause potential for overflow errors. Freeways are designed for traveling really long distances and from a technical standpoint on Waze, we need to absolutely minimize the number of nodes they have.

Overpasses, by definition, must be ground-separated to allow for passage underneath - for cars, trains, pedestrians, seagulls, rabbits, cats chasing said rabbits, whatever. Approaching abutments on the ground are definitely not overpasses.

A tunnel, in my mind, has to have enough visual structural separation from whatever it's crossing under for it to not look like an overpass. In other words, a tunnel is a tunnel because it doesn't look like an overpass.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Waze Editing Manual | USA Road Types | USA Forum
Cricket (AT&T) iPhone XR / iOS (latest) / Waze (latest/beta)
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 325 times
Been thanked: 548 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby qwaletee » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:57 am

Yeah, and I'm still convinced that open cuts are NOT ground. The tunnel attribute makes an even better case for it.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1137 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby qwaletee » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:38 am

Fredo-p wrote:
qwaletee wrote:Yeah, and I'm still convinced that open cuts are NOT ground. The tunnel attribute makes an even better case for it.



Open cuts? You mean the narrow roads that go under another road? If so, -1 should be fine with no need for a tunnel.


Open cuts are roads that run in a deep trench, entirely below surround ground level. If you threw a platform over the trench, you'd have a tunnel.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/UJHqfAKhYwR2

Per the official rules, this is ground. That overpass is +1, even though it is a contiguous part of this street: https://goo.gl/maps/GA3CuEkMJ4J2

So, by the current rules, you have to assign a different elevation to that short strip of Sackett St above the BQE.

I don't see a good reason for it. A Waze engineer didn't think it made sense to have a long stretch of roadway all be -1 when it is "sitting on the ground in the open air." I think open cuts were just outside his experience and/or he didn't think it through well. It should have no effect on routing, and the effect on visuals is up to the product team to decide. By forcing it to ground, you may introduce all sorts of odd artifacts in to the visuals, and Waze will not get the opportunity to decide if they want a different visual for this without a great deal of re-editing. I cannot think of any possible harm setting the BQE to -1 might cause, now that -1 is guaranteed not to produce false tunnel drawings without setting the tunnel attribute.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1137 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby qwaletee » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:06 am

Fredo-p wrote:I'd give priority to the 278 and make each overpass/bridge a +1. Maybe....MAYBE make the 278 a +1 when it goes over Atlantic. Or just make that small section of Atlantic a -1 right under the 278 since I don't see a need to chop up the 278.


I really don't see why. I'd rather have BQE (278) be -1, and the surface-level roads be consistent Ground instead of having a meaningless bridge.

Here's another problem it creates. For much of its length, there's a parallel street at the surface. Should they both be ground? Should the surface street also be +1? Again, neither makes a lot of sense.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1137 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby qwaletee » Fri Dec 25, 2015 5:48 am

There is a heck of a lot of misinformation in this thread. Thank you, PZ, for correcting much of it.

Robin, actually, the term "bridge" includes any overpass. The definition of a bridge (engineering) is any structure that carries a roadway above a ground-level object or feature. I.e., any roadway that is not build on top of solid surface. Waze already maps them in Livemap based on elevation. There's no mixup, that's considered inherent now and the future intent of the developers.

I'll repeat, we have information from the devs that roadways with a positive elevation WILL be drawn as bridges. Ground and negative will not, nor will they be drawn as "tunnels" unless teh new tunnel attribute is ticked.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1137 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby qwaletee » Fri Dec 25, 2015 6:31 am

No, because it took place in non-forum conversation with devs. I can probably find the editors who had those conversations - I think it was sketch or PZ.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1137 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby qwaletee » Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:55 am

Thank you, The1Who and Robin. This is exactly what I was getting at. The Seagull rule is an attempt to be cute, but the language just gets in the way.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1137 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby qwaletee » Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:50 am

Tradition?
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1137 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby robindlc » Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:14 am

IMO we are mixing different things. We are mixing tunnels, bridges and elevations.

Tunnels. As explained, in Barcelona meetup was rejected the idea to link tunnels with elevations below zero. Now, with the checkbox for tunnels, these are two absolutely separated features.

Bridges. Also bridges are not related to elevations. If you think on a bridge you will probably be thinking on a bridge over a river... If a transitable road goes over a river or any other kind of landmarks, or even a non transitable road (such as railroads) there is no need to change its elevation (Said by Damian Abramovich in Madrid Meetup). So the "real" bridges (or what we have in our minds as bridges) are not linked to elevation.

Elevation. It is a feature we have to inform the system that two segments overlap but do not actually connect in the real world. Then the value of Elevation for each segment must be different.

Ground level. I do prefer to say 0 level. For me 0 level is the reference level. Set up by default. And for Spain we have decided that important roads such as freeways will keep this reference level 0. Any small road crossing it a different level will be +1 or -1 depending on its relative position to the 0 level road used as reference. This is to avoid as much junctions as posible in highways. We also have been told that the number of junctions do not affect the routing, but the possible mistakes yes.

As for the visual representation, this is up to waze.
[ img ][ img ]
robindlc • coordinador España • forowazeopedia
robindlc
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:54 am
Has thanked: 835 times
Been thanked: 2528 times

Re: [Page Upate] Road Elevation

Postby robindlc » Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:55 am

the1who wrote:We have had discussions with devs on a 1-on-1 level a time or two.


Yes, but this is for the drawing.

In the last meeting in Madrid, we asked about overpasses, underpasses and which segment to consider as level 0. A few days later we have the answer and we have it by writing. Answer: it is up to the community decision. In other words, there is no a specific guideline to consider 0 what is in the ground.

Cruces de autopistas a nivel

¿Cuál de las dos debe ser nivel cero? Respuesta: Esta es una decisión enteramente de la comunidad

It seems that there are 2 different matters: the routing (which is not affected at all) and the drawing (which at least in the live map draw the positive elevations)


It is really difficult to have clearly (and written) statements from the staff. It is a pity to be involved in a endless discussions that could be easily solved by the staff if they wanted to do so. To be honest when the whole Wazeopedia project started I expected more involvement from the staff to improve the knowledge.
[ img ][ img ]
robindlc • coordinador España • forowazeopedia
robindlc
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:54 am
Has thanked: 835 times
Been thanked: 2528 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users