edsonajj wrote:

sketch wrote:But, regardless, at the very least, cardinals should be used on every freeway and expressway

Maybe in the US, but not in Mexico.

Over here, when a cardinal is used on a road name it is because the cardinal is part of the official name.
If we add cardinals to roads that don't have it in the name the main result would be more difficulty in searches.
Beside that, the practice for cardinals in official names is different than for most of the world. When a cardinal is added to the name it usually reflects what point it is closer to from the middle on the north.That means than on a north-south road, the "top half" is named north and the "bottom half" is named south.

You are right, and I should have specified that I was only talking about the United States.

We do use cardinals in that way as well, not on freeways, but often on city streets depending on the city. We have S Claiborne Ave and N Claiborne Ave, and S Carrollton Ave and N Carrollton Ave, S Gayoso St and N Gayoso St... depending on which side of Canal Street they're on. And some places are even more crazy about it, especially out west. Portland OR is divided into quadrants, so every road has a name like NW Beaverdam Rd. And in Utah, it is done like this, but with numbers too, so you have roads with names like E 1600 S. But, that's only where addresses are used, and never on freeways.

PesachZ wrote:

CBenson wrote: 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

Precisely my point, on a normal divided road with no access control, nearly every U turn will be via a single median segment.

bwawsc wrote:Sorry, but to me, a lowly R3 editor, prevent means prevent, and if it fails to prevent then it failed. There is no difference between "prevent" and "prevent absolutely", just as there is no difference between "stop" and "stop completely". The current nomenclature is confusing, in more ways than just this. It deserves to be revisited.

No prevention method is 100% effective. Condoms break, crimes still happen, and automobile engines still die no matter how diligent you are about changing the oil.

Detour Prevention is what Waze staff calls this mechanism and therefore is what we shall call it as well.

In the first paragraph of the Criteria section, there is the sentence

Waze will look for alternate routes that get to that same point try to find a direct route

that confuses me. Is it trying to state "that same point to try to" or is it stating "that same point and try to".
They're both essentially the same thing, it's just that the current statement flow is broken.
Thanks

I would have no objection to "Detour Penalization Mechanisms". After all, it uses the same acronym.
They are meant to prevent detours in some circumstances and to allow them in others.

We will have to expect quite a number of experienced editors to carry on using the older term, which could be somewhat confusing.

I suggest that we have the simple explanation, as described by Qwaletee, that can be understood by those beginning to learn BDP, which will allow them to get a "feel" for the material. This should come with a very brief qualifier that this is not the whole story, but will work 90% of the time (or whatever our best guess is). The goal of this section is to provide guidance for building interchanges and intersections in a sensible way that will usually avoid weird routing. The explanation of "how it works" is only necessary to give the reader a "feel" for what is going on, which is often important for learning and remembering this kind of material.

Then we have the additional details,qualifiers, conjectures, results of testing, explanations from staff, etc, captured, collated, organized as well as possible for those who wish to learn everything known about the subject.

As an aside - it is quite common for introductory texts to contain "how it works" explanations that are not comprehensive, and often not even strictly true. You can see this in text books for Chem 101 and for Celestial Navigation.

There are cases where the cardinals don't make a lot of sense.

As in Vestal Parkway, in Vestal, NY, near Binghamton.

At main street, adresses count up in both the East and West direction.
So there is a 200 E Vestal Pkwy and a 200 W Vestal Pkwy

In order to avoid confusing drivers, the whole thing is now simply "Vestal Pkway" with "Vestal Pkwy E" and "Vestal Pkwy W" as alts for proper address searching.

Using "Vestal Pkwy E" and "Vestal Pkwy W" for the two driving directions would be OK with the drivers, but would make no sense for address searching. 217 Vestal Pkwy now could match
* 217 E Vestal Pkwy
* 217 E Vestal Pkwy
* 217 Vestal Pkwy (two options, since there is a 217 on each side of Main Street)

-----
But if the final cardinal were added, it could match
* 217 Vestal Pkwy E
* 217 Vestal Pkwy W
* 217 E Vestal Pkwy (same location as 217 Vestal Pkwy W)
* 217 W Vestal Pkwy (same location as 217 Vestal Pkway E)

So the choice, with Vestal Parkway, seems to be between getting the addresses correct and avoiding BDP issues. Which is more important?
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... ,501005996

PesachZ offered a correction based on information directly from Waze Staff:
viewtopic.php?f=276&t=171696&start=10#p1310544

with the slight rewording given here:
viewtopic.php?f=276&t=171696&start=30#p1311494

As the suggestions of a more extensive rewrite were not followed up by any actual writing from anyone else, I think it makes sense to make the corrections to the USA page so the USA page can be correct. This was proposed nearly a month ago. Any objection to making the change now?

It seems to cover all the information that changed or seems a little vague in the current version.
Is there anyone we need to weigh in who has not seen it already?

DwarfLord wrote:detours, which may or may not result in prevention, depending on circumstances.

Is prevention a result? Isn't prevention a mechanism that makes use of the penalization mechanism? So the result of the prevention mechanism is a detour that will or will not be made?

DwarfLord wrote:the naive reader to believe that Waze is designed to disallow detours at all times; that a detour that does occur reflects Waze failure. This is not accurate!

Wouldn't the same naive reader also use the term 'failed' in combination with detour penalty? And wouldn't that be equally incorrect?
The reader has to understand that it is better not to communicate that the mechanism has failed, but that the detour was the best option despite the prevention mechanism. Will, using the term penalty in the name of the mechanism, help with learning to understand this?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk