[Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:33 pm

CBenson wrote:I don't know. I think I have to disagree.

PesachZ wrote:In the USA this would not have been an issue at all, since our guidance here is to always add a cardinal direction to end of a divided freeway name.

Where is this guidance?


It seems to me that add names to segments that are clearly for a road with a different name is bound to cause problems in the long run. To do so because the BDP may potentially be changed to penalize this route still does not seem like good practice to me.

In the road names wiki, it is listed for all US numbered highways.
Federal highways should be denoted as follows. Note that the trailing N, S, E, W cardinal direction indicator is used for numbered highways and interstates which are split into two 1-way segments
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:30 pm

sketch wrote:Clearly that needs to be better stated, but it is best practice to use cardinals on every divided numbered highway, and every divided freeway however numbered or named, in the US.

Want to add it to your list of updates that need to be made "soon" :lol:
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:32 pm

qwaletee wrote:WHat I'm hearing is that we still don't know precisely how BDP works, and there are cases where there is BDP that we would think aren't and/or where we would think there is BDP but it does not actually kick in.

I consider this a serious issue. It makes it impossible for us to explain clearly.

Given that, we may as well go with a very simplified explanation that works 80%-90% of the time, insert a qualifier that there are other rules that may affect whether BDP is applied, and call it a day. It will be much more comprehensible to the uninitiated reader than the complete, very technical and detailed description of all we know, without deviating much more from the (unknown) BDP reality than that more complete description would provide.

Also, some of the back and forth above seems limiting in how the information will be used. Reader want to know:

* What BDP is
* How it works (as simply as possible)
* When BDP will kick in and when it won't
* When it is beneficial to force Waze to apply or not apply BDP (contrary to Waze's norm)
* How to force it to happen or not to happen in those situations
* Example, examples, examples, examples, examples, examples, examples, examples, examples, examples
* More examples. Seriously. There should be at least one example at every rule showing how it applies and where it fails.
* A more detailed technical reference with all teh caveats that we know about

I won't argue with your skeleton for an improved reader experience, it seems to be quite nice.

I will argue that I believe with the information above we have a very solid of how and when BDP today. Like anything in the routing engine, especially penalties, they are always in a state of potential flux. Therefore when we know that a specific limitation is only implemented due to processing constraints, as opposed to intended operation, it is prudent to assume they may improve the process to more accurately meet their intent at some point in the future. We therefore when designing guidance should do so in a manner that is compatible with the operation today, as well as the intent. This will give us configurations that work 100% of the time.

Even before the updates I received yesterday, we had a very good success rate forcing the BDP to apply or not where we wanted it. There were a few reported anomalies which led to more research, and finally this update.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:04 am

@Qwaletee and @Voludu2 you both have great ideas which should be examined and hopefully implemented. But that is a longer term goal; drafting, checking, simplifying, redrafting, gathering examples....

I am in no way opposed, but in the short term would like to correct the page now to what we know is accurate.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:19 am

edsonajj wrote:The current proposal seems difficult to understand, at least I wasn't sure that I had understood correctly at first as can be seen several posts earlier.

I dare to consider myself experienced in Waze and had difficulty in understanding it. Without wanting to just criticise the work that has been done, it most probably won't be understood by new editors.

I understand what you're saying and this is not really geared to new editors it is a difficult concept. Which is why it's being suggested to be revived. However I still think that while we work on the revision we could update the current text to be accurate

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:01 pm

CBenson wrote:
sketch wrote:Clearly that needs to be better stated, but it is best practice to use cardinals on every divided numbered highway, and every divided freeway however numbered or named, in the US.

I think I disagree. Unless the address matching has greatly improved, putting cardinals on named highways where the cardinals are not typically used for address searches causes problems. Besides if this is not worldwide guidance, then the BDP should still be designed with the idea that there will be divided highways with the same name on both carriageways.

PesachZ wrote:I will argue that I believe with the information above we have a very solid of how and when BDP today. Like anything in the routing engine, especially penalties, they are always in a state of potential flux. Therefore when we know that a specific limitation is only implemented due to processing constraints, as opposed to intended operation, it is prudent to assume they may improve the process to more accurately meet their intent at some point in the future. We therefore when designing guidance should do so in a manner that is compatible with the operation today, as well as the intent. This will give us configurations that work 100% of the time.

But if the current operation works better than the "potential" operation, like it does for edsonajj's example, shouldn't we tell the developers that changing it is likely to cause more problems than it solves?


The developers are aware of the issues presented by divided highways such as the example provided by edsonajj, and perhaps a fix for that behaviour may included in some future update. But at the very least I can assure you they have acknowledged that it presents an issue which could be handled better.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:51 pm

CBenson wrote:
sketch wrote:cardinals should be used on every freeway and expressway, and those are going to be responsible for 99.9% of every multi-segment U turn.

I'd just state for the record that I believe that there are plenty of divided roads that are not limited access freeways and expressways and that these roads account for more than 0.1% of multi-segment U turns (particularly as there are destinations on such roads that require U-turns to get to and from).

Wouldn't let U-turn on those divided roads be a single segment median though and therefore not subject to the BDP penalty?

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:21 pm

CBenson wrote:Certainly, not universally.
https://www.waze.com/livemap?zoom=17&la ... =-76.69045


I think that can fall into the minority of this category and be dealt with. There's another single segment median 1 minute away.

Also a future update to bdp may also improve the matching for such divided highway uturns to reach your destination.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
Last edited by PesachZ on Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby PesachZ » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:08 pm

I would support CBenson draft as is, it's better than what's currently there. And we can always improve the wording along the way. I would prefer if there was a note to point out that point 4 is a side effect and not the principal design, and therefore more subject to change.
Personally I'm ambivalent of the penalty vs Prevention debate. I believe they both accurately reflect the circumstances.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Detour Prevention Mechanisms

Postby qwaletee » Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:23 am

This is a bit getting pedantic. All of Waze's penalties are designed to prevent unwanted behavior UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: paulkok_my