Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by qwaletee
SureSure, notnot aa problemproblem..
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
Drop quites and replace with italics
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
It seems this discussion has gone down the rabbit hole, at least a little bit. What's the intent of the cited rule? To provide instructions that match what the driver will experience, now or in the future. So, if it is on BGS (or other signage), it goes in, otherwise, not. We have outlined a few exceptions, such as local usage or anticipated sign changes. (I'll give some details about how these exceptions actually work with the rule intent in a moment.)

That's the clear intent. Don't surprise drivers very much. Putting in unsigned exit numbers or other unsigned information and where there is no evidence of an upcoming change? That's just surprising to drivers now and forever, with no particular benefit. That's really all we need to say.

Here's the analysis of the exceptions I mentioned above:

* when there is a common local usage name (that might be given in personally-conveyed instructions) missing from a sign, it can be added to the end if it it doesn't create other problems - makes sense in the rule context, in that the driver might have received outside information and this helps the driver identify the exit without much risk of surprise.

* when an exit has been assigned a name or number, but it hasn't YET made it to the sign (but would be expected to come onto signage relatively quickly), you can include the naming/numbering ANTICIPATING the future signage - makes sense in the rule context, because we'll either be adding it early now or adding it late later when teh sign does appear. Either way is not ideal, so might as well satisfy things for the long run at the expense of current short-term confusion, rather than make it good for now but confusing for the long term if nobody notices the need for change.

I know, I know, that's not EXACTLY what the wiki says, but as I said, that's the clear intent. Use your judgement within that.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
I think we do agree, but the language could be much simpler and still be clear.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
Done!

I added the following sentence to the paragraph: In particular, use cardinal (directional) names on divided highways for both primary and alternate names.

Also, while I was at it, I changed wording for clarity and brevity, but with no real change in meaning, here:

from: that currently shield generation is not currently operating at 100%, so some areas do not have the shields on all roads. Waze has said that there will eventually be a process allowing map editors to add shields to road segments in a way that is not connected to the name OF that segment

to: Note that map shield generation is not implemented for all situations, so some roads will not display a shield. Waze has said that there will eventually be a process allowing map editors to add shields to road segments in a way that is not connected to the name of that segment.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 958 times
Send a message
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by robertonthego
Part of the problem here is the language would be California specific as I believe California is the only state with a FHWA waiver regarding NOT displaying the exit number. It wasn't until the early 2000's that California actually had numbers for all exits and interchanges for the entire length of the freeway versus county line to county line (Cal-NExUS) in an effort to be inline with Federal standards what all other 49 states had been doing since the 70's. CalTrans started to replace all existing signage with updated ones that actually meet FHWA MUTCD standards but as with all California plans, the typical issue of money came up and now signs are only being updated as they have to be replaced due to damage or age.

So overall, as part of guidance, I think the exit number should be listed as it's federal standard for them to be there for exits and interchanges and they are present in 49 of 50 states. California signs could be replaced at anytime (and the replacement would have the exit number) so if we have the data at the time of it being edited, I'd say go ahead and add it.

Now as an aside, in regards to your examples, I've personally been through both of your examples numerous times and it drives me nuts each time when Waze tells me to exit (regardless of exit numbers) to get to another freeway when I'm already on a freeway. To me, unless I'm hitting a surface street to get to the other freeway (Say from SR170 south to US101 west), the instruction shouldn't be exit, but maybe that's just the Californian in me since we don't use those pesky EXIT numbers :P
robertonthego
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 107
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 30 times
Send a message
-Robert
AM - Kern, Tulare, and Kings County

Post by robertonthego
DwarfLord wrote: Thanks a bunch. Can you clarify: are you saying that, by federal law, every single highway event that has a number on paper somewhere is required to have that number prominently displayed on signage as well? If it weren't for the waiver, that is.
<SNIP>
Two questions: (1) If California loses its waiver, would it be required by federal law to put up a sign alerting all traffic that they are taking Exit 1A (whether they like it or not, there being no choice)? And (2), does it mean we should add guidance to the map now, perhaps "stay to the left to Exit 1A" (although there is no place to leave the highway, so the "stay left" will be meaningless, but at least the Exit 1A will be communicated to the driver)?
I believe the exit number on signage became a FHWA requirement back in the 70's. In every other state I travel to, interconnections between interstates always have an exit number on the signs. It's also shown on every example in the MUTCD, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf

With that, California has had the waiver since the 70's, I don't see them losing it anytime soon, especially since they've begun actually meeting the federal requirements with the installation/replacement of signs.
robertonthego
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 107
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 30 times
Send a message
-Robert
AM - Kern, Tulare, and Kings County

Post by sketch
It's always been "Exit right to Exit to Kindergarten Court". The "Exit to Exit to Kindergarten Court" is new, but the redundancy has always been there, and I've heard complaints before too.

Some have been using "Exit: Kindergarten Ct" instead, because it's more similar to numbered exits. The redundancy is still there, and it's said like "Exit right to Exit. Kindergarten Court." or "Exit to Exit. Kindergarten Court." Still redundant, but also more awkward.

The final option is just to use "to Kindergarten Ct". Sounds better on TTS ("Exit [right] to Kindergarten Court"), but you lose the "exit" on screen. I think that's a fair tradeoff, though others may not.

The problem with using one for left exits and another for right exits is that, in attempting to compensate for TTS inconsistency, you create a display inconsistency (where only some exits say "Exit" on screen and others don't). If we're not comfortable losing the "Exit" on unnumbered left exits, then we have to keep it on unnumbered right exits.

Before making any big decisions here, we should be sure to get some Californians in on the discussion. If I understand correctly, California still has a huge number of unnumbered exits, so their opinion is valuable.

Hopefully, an upcoming feature will allow us to create an "exit left" command. When that happens, we should reevaluate this question.

(For numbered exits, it says "Exit [right] to Exit 123. Main Street. Anytown." This is acceptable because you are exiting (verb) to Exit 123 (specific noun). "Exit to 123" wouldn't make sense, and something like "Take exit 123 on the right to..." would require some modification of the street name string, which Waze has never done, so we have no reason to assume it ever will—that's not a convincing enough reason to change something that is as simple as it can be currently. For unnumbered exits, on the other hand, the noun tells you no more than the verb does.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 6767
Has thanked: 1118 times
Been thanked: 1664 times
Send a message
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
the guidance linked above is now almost a decade old, but the link gives me a laugh every time i see it, so it stays (:
assistant regional coordinator • south central region • usa
waze global champ • beta leader • and more • new orleans

bye bye fuelly badge! i'm an EV guy now!

Post by sketch
There's no need for anything superfluous tacked on at the end of the string. As you mentioned, it's inconsistent with other ramp names.

It's not necessary that there be two nouns in addition to each verb – "turn right on Main St" is fine with only one noun. The problem with "Exit to Exit to Kindergarten Ct" is that the second noun doesn't add any additional information, whereas the second noun in "Exit to Exit 123: Arnold St" does.

Tacking "exit" onto the end might temper the awkwardness problem, but it doesn't help with redundancy, and it kills consistency. Simply removing exit ("to Kindergarten Ct") tempers awkwardness, eliminates redundancy, and while it reduces consistency with exit ramps, it is consistent with onramps – so, on the whole, better.

The question lies in the balance between consistency and awkwardness/redundancy, and apparently in the past we have decided that consistency with numbered exits is more important. I don't think I'd personally answer it the same way, but that's how it is.

Oh, TTS doesn't ignore parentheticals. It does pause before them, not sure if it does so afterwards as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 6767
Has thanked: 1118 times
Been thanked: 1664 times
Send a message
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
the guidance linked above is now almost a decade old, but the link gives me a laugh every time i see it, so it stays (:
assistant regional coordinator • south central region • usa
waze global champ • beta leader • and more • new orleans

bye bye fuelly badge! i'm an EV guy now!

Post by sketch
I agree that simply removing "Exit" seems the best course of action. The current rule ("Exit to Kindergarten Ct") was written in October 2009, long before Waze had TTS at all.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 6767
Has thanked: 1118 times
Been thanked: 1664 times
Send a message
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
the guidance linked above is now almost a decade old, but the link gives me a laugh every time i see it, so it stays (:
assistant regional coordinator • south central region • usa
waze global champ • beta leader • and more • new orleans

bye bye fuelly badge! i'm an EV guy now!