gettingthere wrote:Unfortunately, as with many of these types of proposals - I don't see this going anywhere.

We need to come up with a better process to present a proposal that affects editing standards, some type of formal voting process, and a deadline. Weeks and months of opinions...

Roger that. 'Course then we can have votes on the wording of the proposals as a lead-in to the vote on the proposal, which if approved, Waze can decide to not implement.

Without a vote (e.g. Surveymonkey, or similar) that receives at least 50 percent plus one, I object to this or any other proposal.

Without comment on whether I think this specific proposal has merit or not, it is time to formalize the change process. I think 55 percent approval is a better standard, but won't fall on my sword over it. The vote must be publicized (in a new, separate forum) for at least one week before voting starts, and be held open at least two weeks. So there's "sunlight" on the results, the results need to be view-able in real time by everyone, and not just the person who initiated the vote.

How about the first vote be on whether or not we agree to a change control process that requires changes to be adopted by a majority (however that is defined), before any change to the wiki? I trust that even if a change is approved by a majority, there's only our own self-discipline that will prevent us from deviating.

Maybe I see things different, but I would never presume to go in and edit the wiki. If I did, the 5m split "requirement" on divided highways would get dropped to 2.5m (8 feet for you Yanks) if there's clearly separate GPS tracks.

Putting my money where my mouth is:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=18519#p166067

Though not without controversy, caused by me apparently, there is a current poll on this issue. It's linked in my signature block, below.

Spil wrote:The freeway segments are named with the road name and direction ("I-86 E", "I-81 N", etc.); the ramp segments include that data as well as the control city. Thus, with the onramps named as in "I-90 W / Buffalo" (rather than the current "to I-90 W / Buffalo"), this still automatically prevents them from being selected with their corresponding "I-90 W" freeway segments in a "Select Entire Street" function.

I've got on-ramps that are BGS'd without any control city, as well as path-finder signs for multi-ramp exchanges that don't have control cities. Without the "to" the naming would end up the same as the Freeway segments.

jasonh300 wrote:I do think each onramp should have a control city, whether it's signed or not. The control city remains the same until you're past that city and then the control city changes. I've always been able to find a sign by an onramp (not EVERY onramp) between major cities to tell me what those control cities should be.

Thorton, CO had to ruin it for you. On either Thorton Pkwy or 120th, the city names for I-25 N/S are Cheyenne, WY and Colorado Springs, respectively. Apparently Longmont, Loveland, Ft Collins and Denver, Castle Rock are too small and unimportant.

jasonh300 wrote:If you're on a non-freeway, approaching an onramp (Ramp type) on the right that is labeled "to I-10 W", your TTS is going to say "Exit Right at I-10W". If you name it "Exit to I-10 W", TTS will say "Exit Right at Exit to I-10 W".

Which is exactly why I don't like unnumbered exits from freeways to be of the form: "Exit to Road" or "Exit: Road", but would rather have "to Road". It sounds terrible from TTS and makes it overly wordy.

sketch wrote:A slash implies an option, a choice. You are not choosing between I-110 S and Biloxi, you are taking I-110 S to get to Biloxi.

FWIW, I also see the slash as a way to imply a line feed or generic separator on a single line of text. Many of the BGS contain the cities listed on separate lines, but since we can't put line feeds in the ramp text, the slash is the next best option. It would be nice if the display created a mini BGS on the screen by parsing this text, using the highway shields, putting the exit ## over the sign, and separating the lines on the slashes.

I always thought the "to" was needed to distinguish from the actual road. Not so important if the sign has the control city, but if it doesn't you need to say "to I-95 N" rather than just "I-95 N" on the ramp.

I thought it caused problems with the select the entire street function.